TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

theskepticalidealist Archive

View 12 posts and 9,063 comments by theskepticalidealist 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)
72

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights19/11/13 06:41 PM
48

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights05/11/13 11:36 PM
10

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights18/11/12 07:10 PM
9

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:01 AM
3

Feminismtheskepticalidealist/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:08 PM
2

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:57 PM
2

Feminismtheskepticalidealist/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:55 PM
1

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights08/11/12 12:21 PM
0

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights21/11/12 10:53 PM
0

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:35 AM
0

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights14/11/12 08:46 PM
0

theskepticalidealist/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:45 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 9,063 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What you mean don't assume reverse autism?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/17 05:32 PM
1

When people say EQ I think there is something real there, it's just they want to put it in certain terms which are ideologically motivated. Correct me if I'm wrong but you can be an social incompetent autistic and still have a high IQ, right? Because someone like that can behave and think in a way that we'd still still legitimately describe as stupid, the only reason we'd not say they were completely stupid would be because we'd know the other side of them is brilliant. By our own reactions to t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/17 01:15 AM
1

Find the part of our brain that says nope and cut it out of everyone. It'll probably be ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/17 12:51 AM
3

Technically you don't need to be touched or be around anyone to survive either, but you will go completely loopy, which isn't usually good for long term survivability. If you kidnap someone and attend to all their basic needs and keep them in solitary confinement, would wanting anything else be a privilege? There's many basic human needs, even if it's not those most immediately concerning like water and breathable air. The desire to reproduce might not be the same kind of basic as eating and sle…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/17 08:22 PM
1

That's literally impossible because any time a woman has sex with a new man, that man is having sex with a new woman. The sense that you are using the word average is a meaningless one. Lets say there's 100 people, 10% of them have 10 blue balls each, whereas 90% of them have none. The average person has 1 blue ball. Lets take another 100 people, this time 100% of them have 1 green ball each. The average person has 1 green ball. Lets say I earned the same as someone else in a year, but whereas t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/17 08:10 PM
2

Who's saying only men should get it?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 12:55 AM
2

YES I DO NOTICE!! :O :O The proliferation of patriarchal privileged pink pigment
/r/MensRights13/04/17 12:48 PM
1

You're basically saying forcing penetration is the only way to rape a man. Wow you really jumped the shark to get here bravo.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 07:09 AM
1

Since "completed rape" probably refers to actual penetrative sex No it doesn't. It includes ANY penetration "no matter how slight" with objects, fingers as well as a penis. if female pepetrators forcing men to penetrate somebody is not counted You mean females forcing males to penetrate THEM. But it also doesn't count men forcing men for penetrate either. if it transfers to homeless men as well, Wellllll.. no there's no good reason to think it translates from the general to the homeless..... you…
/r/MensRights01/04/17 07:05 AM
1

You forgot to state that both years they conducted the survey showed equal rates of rape for men and women the previous 12 months.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 07:00 AM
1

I edited my comment please take another look. It's just not true that "women had no rights". Do you even realise what you're saying? Do you really want to claim that there were no rights women had, that men did not? You'll be backtracking if you don't rephrase. My point was that up until recently, "getting sexual equality" meant "improving women's rights". Only now is the playing field close enough to even that we can really focus on the inequality issues faced by both sexes. How can there be in…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 04:32 PM
1

throughout human history women never had any rights Except this isn't true, this is the false and hateful narrative of feminist ideology. Karen Straughan talks a lot about this. It was always about what was best for women, all the way back to Seneca Falls when they blamed "men" not society. They presented a picture of society which only saw what they perceived men to have and they didn't, and cared only about what the most wealthy and high status men had not the majority of men. This hasn't chan…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 03:57 PM
1

I learned about the women's rights movement of the 1800s **in like middle school.* Oh, well if you learned it in middle school I'm sure that was a deep and thorough enough education on the topic...
/r/MensRights09/03/17 10:33 AM
2

But since it's a monogamy, all males are "entitled" to a wife anyway Huh? monogamy doesn't imply men are entitled to a wife
/r/MensRights09/03/17 10:20 AM
1

the actual dictionary definition of feminism, aka support for equality of the sexes? So you'd be happy with the word masculinism being used for refer to equality as well? No, because the hint to the ideological bias is in the name.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 10:12 AM
1

out of malice You're also assuming FGM is done out of malice.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 02:37 AM
1

Men always have, how else did women get the power in the first place?
/r/MensRights05/03/17 02:31 AM
1

The American Psychologucal Association has some questionable ideology and doesn't need much to qualify. The American Psychiatric Association you need a medical degree and wrote the DSM.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 02:26 AM
1

Not in the UK. And it's not padophilia by definition anywhere.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 02:18 AM
1

Everything they accuse of others is true of themselves. What they'd need to ask themselves is why they felt it necessary to project it all externally onto someone else.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 01:40 PM
4

Unless you've been given another reason to think otherwise, this isn't at all special. Feminists have been saying for a while now that it's not just women's fight, men need to fight for women as well.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 07:24 AM
2

with bpd they'll do anything
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:16 AM
3

No because electrolytes
/r/MensRights20/01/17 12:40 PM
1

Oh sure, not saying there's no crime or misconduct,. My point was that some people might think he could be between 16-18 if they live in places where the age of consent is greater than 16. since all it says is a "school boy". Having sex with a 15 year old is quite different from sex with a 17 year old, so it's good to point out as it's worse than they might think.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 12:29 PM
1

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. There may be some charge of misconduct but you can't get charged for undersex with someone who is not underage. Then again, maybe I missed something in the law. If you have a source I'd like to see it.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 12:25 PM
18

It's far more narcissistic. They say this because they know intellectually they have to to make their case. It sounds good, but it's not what they actually want. It's the same reason they'll say they don't agree with any domestic abuse, or that they care about the rights of men as well as womens. They know logically they have to say that, because intellectually they know to say otherwise is to admit defeat. But whether it's conscious or not they don't actually believe it. But this is WHY they sa…
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:51 PM
1

It's personal choice if men do it, women are forced or coerced into it obviously.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:47 PM
2

This isn't biology alone, this is gender roles. To what extent? And how are you separating biology from gender roles? Where do you think behaviour comes from? Instinct. Where does instinct come from?
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:45 PM
1

why dont feminists fight this huge inequality? The answer is in the question
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:43 PM
2

*jerbs
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:42 PM
24

Where is his age in this article? It just says "schoolboy" doesn't it? Ugh. If the boy is 16 or over then it's not even statutory rape, which means he has to be 15 years old or under. edit: downvote? what on earth for?
/r/MensRights04/12/16 05:16 PM
1

BLM's logic is that if a black gang member shoots black people in his own neighbourhood, then a black cop shoots him, then that was actually a racist attack against a black man. You think I'm misrepresenting them? You can prove it to yourself by asking how BLM differentiates this scenario from a police shooting a black man for racist reasons in the statistics . You won't be able to. All they do is decide all black men shot by police is evidence of systemic racism in the police force. The reason …
/r/MensRights25/10/16 08:54 PM
-3

The claims of BLM are lies, the basis for BLM are lies. If you want to say some watered down anti-racist attitudes are BLM then you've effectively rendered it meaningless. Sure, black lives matter. But that's not "Black Lives Matter". edit: haha wow clearly visited by another sub with all these upvotes for SJW friendly comment
/r/MensRights20/10/16 07:00 PM
-6

And the entire basis of feminism is to advocate for equal rights for men and women. Right? No. You haven't been paying attention to BLM or any commentary on it if you think what you said here is meaningful.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 06:40 PM
8

It was fun to read that back in Bill Burr's voice now you mentioned it. haha
/r/MensRights20/10/16 06:08 PM
52

Men earn more so pay more taxes. But there's a lovely web of rationalisations feminists will use to jump around the whole wage gap thing and when I start talking to one about it it's like I can see the future and know exactly where the conversation will go I find it interesting to figure out how to get out of these neverending wheels of insanity and stop them from playing these games with you and themselves. Rape culture stuff is an even bigger web you'll never get out of, but it was fun to work…
/r/MensRights20/10/16 04:00 PM
127

It's the same with Black Lives Matter. Instead of breaking down the walls of division they entrench them even more.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 03:57 PM
4

Children are the greatest threat to beings everywhere. The lust we feel is the psychic parasite gnawing at our very being telling us to breed, breed now and let us loose once more.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 03:54 PM
1

And in a way, that's true. Only I can also make it work in all kinds of ways where you can say women are the greatest threat to women, women are the greatest threat to men, men are the greatest threat to men, children are the greatest threat to men and women, etc. It all depends on how you look at it. The thing is if you can also get to all these places, then saying all these things become just as meaningful or just as meaningless each other.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 03:51 PM
3

What if he does have a horrible sister? The problem seems to me is in what he might say is the problem
/r/MensRights14/10/16 08:24 AM
4

$100 says she has borderline personality disorder
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:57 AM
85

-If the police said he's not guilty, he got away with it -If the police said she's lying, he got away with it. -If the police say there's not enough evidence to prosecute, he got away with it. -If the courts acquit on shoddy evidence and misconduct, he got away with it -If the courts find him not guilty, he got away with it. -If the courts find him guilty, his sentence is not long enough, he got away with it!
/r/MensRights08/10/16 11:40 PM
1

Why would they be offended if it was routine? If you get randomly stopped for a spot check by police looking for illegal firearms or a dead body or something, are you personally offended or just irritated at the trouble? See, in this case the men are being done a favour. It doesn't make any difference to normal couples that want a child where the mother isn't cheating, then they have nothing to worry about. If his partner isn't lying then he knows it's done on his behalf to protect other men, or…
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:18 AM
1

Right so if women commit crimes and have kids they should be absolved of all punishment right? Or are you going to draw some arbitary line that makes paternity fraud unique?
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:34 AM
1

If the idea is women who commit crimes can get away with it if they have a kid, then why is this logic only applied here?
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:32 AM
1

Then why have safe haven sites? women can literally give the baby away and absolve herself of all responsibly and obligation. What's the difference here? If paternity fraud is so rare it shouldn't lead to much costs anyway. If it isn't so rare then you tighten the punishment severely so women actually worry about intentionally or "accidentally" naming the wrong man as the father
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:28 AM
1

They should do random testing and say if it ever comes out that the kid is someone else's they'll be prosecuted/fined out the wazoo for fraud. Then you see you'd have all the women who are even a little bit uncertain think twice about shrugging their shoulders and deciding they pick man number 28
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:25 AM
4

Worse than that. This writer is defending women who commit fraud
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:21 AM
1

How am I still shocked by these insane lunatics?
/r/MensRights03/09/16 04:21 AM
2

AIR-CONDITIONING IS SEXIST BRAH
/r/MensRights31/08/16 04:18 PM
1

Could be fiction, but "clearly" fiction? No.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 04:17 PM
2

Safe haven. She can give up the baby and have no financial obligations
/r/MensRights31/08/16 04:09 PM
2

How many forms of birth control do you need including emergency pill and abortion? Clearly at that point it is your choice as a woman. It's your body, and you choose to avoid all contraception and birth control before and after, where isn't the choice?
/r/MensRights31/08/16 04:08 PM
5

What feminists anywhere are that way??? I only know Christina Hoff Sommers
/r/MensRights31/08/16 04:01 PM
2

You're assuming the men know about it. Rather harder for a woman to fail to notice
/r/MensRights31/08/16 03:59 PM
1

He's sthoooper! Thanks for asking!
/r/MensRights31/08/16 03:57 PM
-1

It does need to be put in context, any isolated case like this could have ended up like this way for a variety of reasons. I hope people do try to remember that this is part of a pattern and not to get too caught up in thinking this one case is everything. Otherwise it's very easy to be drawn into a frame of mind where you're hooked on the idea that the entire argument hinges on this example.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:49 PM
1

I just found this... How is this great news???? This is Theresa fucking May we're talking about. You do realise that the only reason she'll ever mention a mens issue is to attack men right? Don't you think it matters what context something like this is mentioned? She's one of the worst, and arguably one of the most dangerous people in British politics with the amount of influence she has to push her ideology. She's the Minister for Women and Equalities, c'mon didn't you notice that? It's not eve…
/r/MensRights15/08/16 10:29 PM
1

Being proud of your country isn't the same thing as being proud of your skin colour. One can make sense and is based on something objective, the other is based on the idea that you being white means anything. I'm not proud to be male or white. Why would I be? If you come up with stuff men or some white people did that you think is significant, then you're trying to take credit for their accomplishments. It's stupid in exactly the same way BLM and SJWers in general will try and make you responsib…
/r/MensRights07/08/16 12:04 AM
3

They are such morons. If they try and justify it they'll give serious examples which were already covered by regular laws.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:56 AM
7

Um well I would say White pride is fucking stupid and rooted if not in racist hate then racist ignorance. I'm not proud to be white, I'm just not ashamed either
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:52 AM
1

They can only tip toe around the issues because if they look too far they'll see their house of cards collapse.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:50 AM
1

Oh you mean people like Christina Hoff Sommers. Oh no wait she wouldn't count would she
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:49 AM
3

It's not about saying people can't have a preference it's about how women can have preferences and not be told they're terrible people for having them. As a society we act like men are superficial and women are better than all that. Not only ignoring ways in which women are just as superficial in terms of looking for indications men can provide resources for them, but also ignoring when women wont even want to consider a man if he's less than a certain height. It's the women are wonderful men ar…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:45 AM
-2

You.... Are the lowest common denominator...
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:25 AM
1

They crowned Anita god as well
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:24 AM
1

(disclaimer: I have no idea of shit tests are a real thing). Of course they are. I don't know why there'd be any doubt, it might not be conscious or they might call it something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/16 01:45 PM
1

PS: Oh and just add to what I wrote... If you did choose subcutaneous injection it can make a red bump at the injection site that may be mildly uncomfortable and perhaps a little itchy for a short while. I've injected a few other peptides this way and melatonan-2 is the only one that does this so it's some kind of histamine reaction. This is normal and nothing to worry about, but if you take an anti-histamine before it will help with these effects if it bothers you. Personally I would absolutely…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/16 04:01 PM
2

Just a quick thing. Melatonan-2 is great and really works. The only side effects I had was a few extra small moles darkening and a bit of nausea which I didn't have a problem with if I did it before bed, but can also be easily treated with some simple nausea meds if I have to. Strongly suggest you look into it. Subquetanbeous injection can seem scary but it really isn't, I wouldn't use the stomach though I just stick it in right in the top side of my shoulder. You can use a nasal spray though wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/16 03:07 AM
3

Don't give up at 21. Give up at 31, by then maybe you've ended up going through a few accidental staggered relationships hopefully culminating in a mental breakdown where she'll turn out to be sadistically sociopathic and you have to question your whole sense of reality and how your sense of judgement could be so 100% backwards. That's a good way to want to stay clear of relationships, or have such high standards that she has to meet to prove she can be trusted that you don't care anymore and gl…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/16 12:33 AM
1

i believe the saying goes "if it looks like a duck and quakes like a duck, its a duck". the "aide and abet" dont lower the criminal liability thus thye are the same crime, just perpetrated under a different act. You're debating a totally different argument here and the argument is usually that "sexual assault" comes with the same potential punishment and therefore rape being a male only offence doesn't matter. The only reason I can see that you didn't do that is because you started out thinking …
/r/MensRights24/05/16 04:18 AM
1

Except "men" come in a wide rage of sizes and strengths because what you're talking about is an average. Men just have more individuals at the top end of physical ability than women do. What's more, the more of that high end there is also inflates the average, the same way billionaires inflate the "average" earnings of everyone. If a rich guy moves in next door that means the average earnings of your street has increased dramatically, except none of the rest of you got richer, in fact you could …
/r/MensRights24/05/16 02:38 AM
1

A: no, my point is, that the uk definition DOES allow for women to be convicted I showed you a recent example of a woman being charged with aiding and abetting rape. But CPS rape statistics only include men, because by definition rape is an offence only a man can commit. Women can only aid and abet a man to rape, which is why women aren't on the statistics for rape. the mere fact that they arent is irrelevant. Convicted of what? I never said aiding and abetting wasn't a crime. irrelevant. B: my …
/r/MensRights23/05/16 09:43 PM
1

thats true, but lets get really technical shall we, ima quote my law text book here "it had been suggested a women can be guilty of rape as the principal if she uses an innocent agent to have sexual intercourse with a woman." that said it is something thats contested as the case its reliant on is criticized (though nothing suggests this idea was). Doesn't this just back up exactly what I'm saying? I don't understand why you wrote this. as far as aiding and abetting goes whilst it is true it isnt…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 09:16 PM
1

But then, as I said, it's not gender specific and therefore when you say men see women as inferior it's meaningless. The measure of gender is irrelevant by your reasoning. And I'm just putting aside the projection you keep making that "men" think like you (and "gym bros") do.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:53 PM
1

I don't think legally a woman is considered a "rapist" if they are aiding and abetting other to commit it. From what I can see, as far as what you're charged with I'm pretty sure it's a separate charge, like "You are charged with aiding and abetting rape of xxxx" rather than just "you are charged with rape of xxx". I could be wrong but everything I read doesn't make that seem likely. It would also mean that all the official CPS statistics for convicted rapists in the Uk would include a breakdown…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:34 PM
1

Look at the definition in the Oxford dictionary linked in the OP. It defines the "offender" of rape as one who had sex with someone against their will. So by the definition in the OP, the one I was referring to, aiding and abetting isn't covered.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 04:19 PM
1

It is correct if you look at the context of the definition
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:10 PM
1

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, but I don't deny any of that. I was refering to seeing it represented in visual media.
/r/MensRights22/05/16 07:50 AM
1

Actually I read the part of your comment about women being helpless wrong. But nevertheless you did say this... The VAST majority of men [...] do NOT see [women] as inferior YOU: I think we do see them as inferior [...] I think it comes from the feeling of being stronger than someone You're the one using the word "inferior" here to apply to how you see those physically weaker than you are. Therefore you must see anyone weaker than you as inferior regardless of gender, which ruins your whole gene…
/r/MensRights20/05/16 11:24 PM
2

You just started off saying women are literally physically helpless and that's why we see them as helpless and inferior, and now you're saying you're not talking about physical strength only perceived strength. Make up your mind?
/r/MensRights20/05/16 10:01 PM
1

I don't get it. I feel stupid.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:46 PM
1

The kid is the sperm and the zorb is the egg. Anyone else see that? haha
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:44 PM
3

I think we do see them as inferior in many ways. I think it comes from the feeling of being stronger than someone (if you lift weights you will get it with most guys too). Speak for yourself.... I don't think someone's "inferior" to me just because they're physically weaker. Maybe if you're a arrogant gym bro. Also, the stereotype that girls are helpless (which they in my experience often endorse) doesn't help with the matter. What are you talking about? Men are generally stronger than women on …
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:38 PM
3

Women are more likely to get away with it.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:36 PM
6

It's not just the whole pedo thing it's also because we just don't see this kind of thing so it looks unusual which adds to the effect. Something about it just seems uncanny and therefore at least vaguely "creepy" when 99.9% of the time it's a female body with the baby. Also I'll add to this and say it also feels more natural for the mother to be that close by default because of the biological connection.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:34 PM
2

Wow she's a textbook narcissist
/r/MensRights29/04/16 07:04 PM
4

Don't forget a lot of people get here from other subs so they might not be part of the MRM
/r/MensRights29/04/16 06:25 PM
5

lol what? That's the basis of their idea of "rape culture".
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:28 AM
2

No one said feminists say rape shouldn't be reported, they said feminists deter women from reporting by lying to them about how common rape is, lying about what kind of person rapes, and lies about pointless it is to report it
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:27 AM
1

Um why? Do you realise the judge specifically said the women were lying? It's not like he got off on a technicality, the claimants were so dishonest it was impossible to think they were credible
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:24 AM
3

You miss the point and since there's so many of you I assume this thread has been linked somewhere else. The point is about feminists lying about rape and fear mongoring so that women end up with a wholly distorted view of it all.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:22 AM
1

You're missing the point. The person who wrote this was detered from reporting based on lies and fear mongoring
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:19 AM
0

You're missing the point. The person who wrote this was detered from reporting based on lies and fear mongoring
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:19 AM
-1

Simply put, when feminists tell women there's no point in coming forward because they won't be believed and their rapist will probably get off anyway, they deter women from reporting. When they tell women that rape is so common and committed by men that don't even know they're doing it, they imply it's not important enough to report and so normalised that it's unavoidable anyway. Everything they say about rape deters women from reporting rape. Now see the real problem here isn't that they aren't…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:16 AM
0

You must be new to all this. If you think it's just tumblr you've got a lot to learn.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:11 AM
1

You need to address with yourself why you believe you have to hate someone if you think they're wrong.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:09 AM
2

What part do you find embarrassing in the way the MRM handled Cologne?
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:07 AM
7

Patriarchy's been drinking again
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:05 AM
1

Why do you think they definitely don't? Your argument was that when YOU as a MAN had low T you had a weaker sex drive and used this as evidence for how women must have lower sex drives (like you experienced). If women had T levels lower than men who are deficient and experiencing libido loss then women would have virtually no sex drive whatsoever if it was directly related in the same way. It also means that a man with a low sex drive has to have less T than a slutty women that has to have the h…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 10:33 AM
1

I have had high and low testosterone, and the difference is night and day. If T is so tied with sex drive then why don't the most feminine and most lacking in testosterone women have the lowest libidos, while the most masclunine women with the highest levels of T have the highest libidos? Or maybe your experience with low T isn't something you can extrapolate to the idea that men have a higher sex drive in women because they have higher T than women do, and that maybe your experience as a man wi…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:53 AM
1

into OKCupid's findings that women find 80% of men "below average", While I absolutely do think that's generally accurate, and for a variety of reasons, there's a lot of issues and selection bias in that statistic so I do hope people put it into context and not overemphasise the weight of it. into lesbian bed death, First time I'd heard of it so I googled it. I know it's the Daily Dot, but according to their article the statistics that had appeared to show less sex in lesbian relationships count…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:25 AM
1

no we must fight
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:58 PM
2

I dunno it doesn't seem so bad to me. If you're not reading into it, I would have to think you're going by something outside this article, like the authors previous work. A lot was said that was very antithetical to most feminist ideas about this topic as you can see by some of the comments that weren't exactly pleased
/r/MensRights20/04/16 04:02 PM
1

Camille Paglia isn't saying anything that will raise any eyebrows of anyone that already know who she is. They already hate her. I hope more people like her come out of the woodwork and become more well known. I will say she sounds like she's taken too much ADHD meds.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 02:40 PM
1

Well the wiki is there :)
/r/MensRights20/04/16 09:04 AM
5

I'm referring to blinkers. Apparently they're also called blinders according to wiki, so I guess it's the same thing.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 08:48 PM
1

Sorry I was on a mobile, in case the other comment doesn't mention it. I just noticed a comment form your previous post: nd obviously people do twist it so that not guilty means false accusation. You find people twist not guilty into guilty more often. It's a very difficult thing to collect data on because it's all difficult to measure.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 08:44 PM
3

Are you still skeptical after seeing it's a real group?
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:45 PM
3

IM READING
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:39 PM
1

WDB. Wadub Werdub
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:38 PM
2

Plenty of em around
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:36 PM
1

You'd need to define rape. There's big studies out there showing its equal, but that might not mean it is equal it means based on the definition it's equal. The trouble feminists have is that they want an expansive defintion of rape, but don't want to deal with all the men that it covers as well.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:31 PM
1

Look at the PASK data.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:27 PM
1

Isn't it "blinkers"? As in the things they put on horses so it doesn't get distracted by stuff not in front of it
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:26 PM
1

If you think about it, you could say it's kind of a troll ;P
/r/MensRights19/04/16 06:41 AM
17

The most dangerous people are the emotional reasoners. They feel it, therefore it must be true. They feel offended by you, therefore you must be doing something unethical towards them. And here's the really crazy part, if they're bad enough they're able to keep this up even if they themselves are doing the exact same thing they're falsely accusing you of doing. And you can't prove to them they're doing this even if you spell it out so a child could understand. It's because accepting this would m…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 05:48 PM
4

We don't realise how dangerous these people are until it's too late.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 05:43 PM
2

I already acknowledged that rapists can do it because they are horny not because they enjoy the power. Feminists tend to want to claim sexual desire has nothing to do with rape, I already showed you I'm in opposition to this. I'm not sure how you managed to read the opposite into what I wrote. What I said is that it doesn't just take someone to be really horny to rape, it takes a certain level of sociopathic lack of concern for others to use them this way. We also have to look at why they are ho…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 07:29 PM
2

Actually technically it's still incorrect, since UK law defines rape so that it's impossible for a women to be a rapist, whereas this definition says they can. A valid entry for rape in a dictionary would be one which shows multiple uses of the word, one of which could be the UK legal defintion, but we know they aren't interested in being accurate
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:04 PM
5

Actually there's a fallacy in your logic. You are assuming that a higher sex drive means more likely to rape. One could argue you need to demonstrate men have that much of a higher sex drive in the first place, but that would be a red herring as it just doesn't matter. Rape and sexual assault can just be a selfish behaviour using someone else for your sexual pleasure, and feeling so entitled that you don't care what they want. That's still got nothing to do with a high sex drive. However we also…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 05:55 PM
1

Hahaa I actually wondered where you were going with that when I started reading. Well done :P
/r/MensRights28/03/16 04:47 PM
2

Look, feminists keep trying to convince everyone women are disabled, but they're fiercely sensitive about it so we must all pretend they aren't.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 04:44 PM
1

OMG they listed WhiteRibbon as an example of helping men! Even though it's specifically about men "committing" to not abuse women and girls. Just wow.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 04:22 PM
1

What i mean is that when RP describes BP, he fits the bill. Has ideals about love, is a "Nice Guy", honest, open, caring, communicates well. In tune with his emotions. I urge you to look into codependency and what that is, the symptoms and causes etc. I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this, but your frustration with your boyfriend may actually come from a very reasonable place, even if it might be manifesting in unhealthy ways. ie. your "shit tests". I'll just explain what I've learned r…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/02/16 06:42 AM
1

Well the good start is you're self aware enough to notice your own thinking, so you should be impressed with yourself. Next I'd say you really need to figure out why you think it's important to you. I know that might sound obvious but that's the key to all of this. You can read about how other women behave and other peoples theories and that might help inform your own perspective. But in the end you should take it all in context. You are your own person and while there may be a biological compon…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/16 10:27 AM
1

Not in her circles
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/16 12:24 PM
1

I know that but I would have put white female first as those are the most important variables
/r/MensRights09/01/16 08:48 PM
8

Why didnt you list female to check off?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 11:35 PM
0

The point isn't what's just, it's the comparative difference in treatment between men and women.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 11:34 PM
1

I never know, is 'card carrying' a saying or literal? Or did it used to be literal?
/r/MensRights26/12/15 05:20 PM
70

That's the same "choice" women have. 'Didn't want to get pregnant? Shouldn't have had sex then.' Unless you're anti-abortion and use this logic toward women who want one, it's just as reasonable. Of course you can just choose not to have sex, but that's not a relevant form of 'birth control.'
/r/MensRights26/12/15 05:19 PM
2

I'm all for LPS, but this isn't a good comparison since men don't get pregnant. Something like circumcision or being drafted are fair comparisons.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 05:15 PM
3

Little hyperbolic. I mean, was she really a "fraud", or more a retroactively ironically used model?
/r/MensRights22/12/15 11:03 PM
1

My body!!! Is tellin me yes!!
/r/MensRights22/12/15 10:58 PM
2

If it's fitness they're measuring why do they measure strength and speed? They'd have people on a treadmill with heart monitors, they'd measure endurance not speed. In reality when they let women in the armed forces they had to reduce the standard or most all of them would fail.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/15 01:21 AM
1

That's terrible, but I was really referring to the question to the question that seemed to imply the police won't think it's a crime or important. In terms of mens rights, he has a lot of reason to ask the question if a woman hit him.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 05:14 PM
1

That's not true. You assume people are constant, but they're really not. It's hard for his father to accept it, and he may never be able to, but it's not guaranteed. I didn't say he couldn't change. I said his actions were so severe and unreasonable that he doesn't deserve to be let off. Maybe having him arrested is actually the best thing for him to understand how badly he acted. I've seen that happen with many people like this. A wake up call, as it were. The kind of person that beats up their…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 04:59 PM
1

But unless she is on roids or something she will never be able to compete with men in pushups. If it's not necessary to be as fast or as strong as the male standards demand, then why aren't you in favour of lowering the male standard?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/12/15 08:41 PM
1

So... -- Men who like dominating women sexually are terrible people. -- Women who like to be dominated only like it because they subconsciously hate women, like someone who was abused as a child and now gets off on it. -- Men who don't desire to control women are mature and good. -- Women who desire to dominate are... ????? -- Men who enjoy submission are... ????? You missed a few points here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/15 08:36 PM
1

... You do realise you're disagreeing completely with the first commenter right? Do read what they wrote again.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/15 08:31 PM
2

The ones you believe get "none" still get more than men do.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 08:23 PM
7

Do you want your father to accept your sexuality? Tell him. What? Didn't you read the OP's post? He already did that, and then his Dad beat him up. It doesn't sound like he's likely to be someone you can safely reason with. His only options are to leave, or leave and have him arrested.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:13 PM
4

Can I go to the police with this? I live in a very traditional town and I feel like they would just laugh at me for being a pussy. ... Is this a troll? Of course you can. The only question relevant here would be if it was a woman that hit you. Not only is it assault, it's also domestic violence since you live with him. Though I certainly wouldn't continue to live with him.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:11 PM
1

There are others. Such as here.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:04 PM
5

To go into extremes, fat feminists who exude hate and have fluorescent-pink dyed tomahawks do not reap those social benefits, False. They get LESS benefits
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:51 PM
2

Women are culturally discouraged from embracing their sexuality; it's assumed that men jerk off and watch porn, but considered exceptional when women do it. Bollocks. Ann Sommers and the bazillion sex toys for women. I rest my case.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/15 02:47 AM
3

Men also have a lower baseline for what is considered bangable. This is because men have on average 7 times as much testosterone as women. Not because of the hierarchy of needs? If it's easy to get physical attraction towards you, you're going to be more choosy. If it's difficult to find food, you're going to be less choosy. Hormones may well pay a part, I just think this adequately explains things without even needing to bring that into it. Attractive men are more choosy, if they get to take th…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/15 02:46 AM
4

Many men would like to take some of this power away - and debase the woman and the sex act via pornography. The more the man is in control, the more exciting it is to him. Because he knows that in reality, women have all the control over the production of human beings. LOL wow... If what you're saying were true then what of the women that enjoy this treatment? What does it say of the men that sexually desire the opposite of what you described? Maybe your interpretation is broken.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/15 02:42 AM
1

They are finally coming to the table to debate. lol no they aren't. I'll believe it when I see it.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:29 AM
1

That's what I thought, which wouldn't make it fit as an example
/r/PussyPassDenied08/12/15 09:04 PM
2

When I checked for the US the basic requirements are less in every case for women. The minimum requirements for men are still more than the requirements for women to be considered as excelling.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 08:20 PM
2

The minimum standards for men in the US army are still more than the best standards expected for women. I haven't heard they do fake push-ups, but the number they have to is far less, and for the running test they can be slower
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 08:12 PM
0

You say women might still be useful even if they can't physically compete with the other men, but that's true for other men as well, or do you think women are uniquely gifted intellectually?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 04:20 PM
2

Without checking, is that really true, or they merely required to do some form of compulsory military service for a time?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 04:19 PM
1

It's not a matter of it being men or women because all men are forced to be drafted no matter how physically capable they are.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 04:15 PM
1

The scientific method is a method that helps us gain as accurate an understanding about reality as possible, with the least likely potential for error. For you to compare this subject to paranormal claims is a huge leap. There's no barrier whatsoever for this subject to be unscientific. That doesn't mean there aren't false or unscientific claims, but you've not said that, you've said the very idea is unscientific. You used the word faith. Now I don't know what you mean when you say faith, but fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/15 11:26 PM
1

Speaking generally, I'm always amazed at the people who say a man should never hit a woman because the man is stronger, but not (just) because men aren't always as strong or how being stronger doesn't mean you can't be seriously hurt or abused by someone physically weaker. How on earth do they expect someone to defend themselves while not potentially injuring the person that's assaulting them? Even Aikido which is only intended to be used defensively is still going to hurt someone you use it on.…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 05:59 PM
1

Do you describe theories about evolutionary psychology derived from observations of the behaviour of other animals as faith as well, or do you think only humans are special and unique from all other life?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/15 12:08 PM
2

Did I miss something? Why would anyone need to show "all" men or "all" women behave certain way?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 07:05 PM
1

Uhh yea they do actually say that. I've read a lot of porn site comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 07:02 PM
1

Once again you think all men think like you do
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 07:00 PM
1

And you already said you know nothing about pop culture. Maybe what you think isn't a good measure to assume other men think like you do
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 06:59 PM
1

Oh nonsense you think if men had the chance to meet their favourite movie star they wouldn't? The reason there isn't as many competitions around is because these women aren't prepared to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 06:57 PM
1

Money is attractive because money is power, and power allows you to have control over your life. A man "in control over his life" is the real point here
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 06:52 PM
1

No. Because there's no reason the kind of woman you're thinking of needs to do even half those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/15 06:44 PM
1

To me it's more important that she 'believes' Stoya is lying, but says it doesn't matter. She says we should act like false accusations are true anyway, no matter what.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:22 AM
1

Doesn't really matter does it? The important thing is she believes it. To me the troubling thing isn't whether the rape happened because let's face it the chances are we're never really going to know if there's no witnesses or video. My problem with all this is how easily someone can be destroyed by two short tweets on Twitter, and how people like the OP posted believe that even if someone is lying we should pretend they aren't anyway, or something.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:15 AM
5

He's a man, doesn't count. !
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:56 AM
1

Wasn't this on tumblrinaction?? Where did it go I can't find it anywhere?? At any rate no matter what the truth is this statement by this "Gaby Dunn" person is bonkers.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:54 AM
3

If she hits you chances are you'll still be the one they'll arrest for DV even if you merely blocked her attacks if she bruises her fists or arms on you
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:28 AM
-4

It's interesting how people only ask these questions when you're talking about female violence
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:26 AM
-1

Why can't it just be the equivalent of wearing a dash cam? Or just make it so they switch it on when pulling someone over? I really don't see why it necessarily needs to be so overly complicated. I can imagine various ways you could deal with it.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/11/15 05:42 AM
-1

I just don't see why they couldn't fairly easily get around those problems. Have your concerns been tested in real life? So, has a camera stopped recording in the middle of a situation that makes it unclear as to who was at fault? Has a camera ever been pointing in direction that didn't allow a good view of something of importance? If yes, how did that turn out? I get what you're saying, really. But we've had dash cams for a while now and they carry very similar potential issues. They can also f…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/11/15 05:39 AM
2

Lol even Jezebel said it was stupid according to that DM quote from them
/r/MensRights24/11/15 01:38 AM
4

The problem we currently have is making it clear what is and isn't justifiable to be called rape in the first place. Look at some of the famous examples, like mattress girl. We have more and more universities with mandatory "consent" classes telling young people drunk sex is rape (only for her obviously). So we have a significant number of women in a whole generation that have this watered down definition, where bad sex or regret can now be justified as being "rape". Where the idea of taking res…
/r/PussyPassDenied23/11/15 11:17 PM
1

Yea but I don't see why it couldn't still be seen as a good idea for even really crooked cops. They could just turn the camera on whenever they pull somone over or when they think shits goin down. Isn't that how police incar cameras work at the moment? When they pull someone over they switch it on?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/11/15 11:14 PM
1

All the more reason to show them cases like this then isn't it? They'll more likely wear them (and therefore be better behaved) if you've been able to make them more concerned about protecting themselves.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/11/15 11:13 PM
8

Well you're just cissexist transmisogynstic scum aren't you! There are women with prostates duh they're called transwomen. They're true women no matter what their biology is. But ...at the same time... they're also a separate distinct gender separate from male and female. /s
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:23 AM
5

Yea it's easy to forget that extra later of cognitive double think is found in the male tumblrinas as well
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:20 AM
10

I didn't know a beard has to be dirty, I guess that means my hair on my head is dirty as well? And women should shave everywhere? I mean I like ladies who shave down there but it's not necessarily unhygienic
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:16 AM
1

Jeez even I could come up with a better comparison. Beast cancer is much more risky for women because it can strike young as well as old, whereas men are far more likely to get prostate cancer much later in life than when they're younger. So, you could say that you'd trade the risk of prostate cancer for breast cancer. When the people that disagree with you the most can come up with better arguments than you can to defend your own position, it should really be time to give up. Oh, and men are mo…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:14 AM
1

The man wasn't abused? Wow? Lol
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:17 AM
1

Um I'm not RP but I never got the impression they didn't know why
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/15 12:20 AM
5

Hahaha this sounds like a joke post. If TRP wrote this feminists would be saying it was promoting rape
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/15 12:19 AM
1

Clearly you didn't watch the video, and you're really new to all this. Lets take the subject in Karens video that I linked to in the previous comment, how do you help men with domestic violence without criticising the ways in which feminism got it wrong and still gets it wrong? MRA's realise there are problems for both genders, saying they don't shows how little you know about the MRM. Warren Farrell didn't stop thinking there are problems for women, he just started to recognise there was anothe…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 02:05 PM
1

And also makes her a more sympathetic figure. They know it's harder for them to attack someone like her, when she looks and seems so nice and reasonable.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:17 AM
4

Well then it's funny the feminists that refused to support her, with the likes of Manboobs trying to find anything on her to attack, don't think it's so obvious it's going to be anti-MRA, right? If it was, she'd not have needed to get funding this way. So what if she calls herself a feminist? (And who knows, maybe after the film she doesn't, but has to hide her reluctance to use that word right now or it will spoil it) Have there never been self described feminists that changed their minds? If C…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:13 AM
3

Nobody thinks it'll beg pro-MRA I do. Because lets face it, if it's at all positive in any way feminists will consider it pro-MRA. It's all black and white to them so any shades of grey are unacceptable, wait... I mean "problematic". The rhetoric has been that MRA's are just irrational hateful resentful man-babies that have either had bad breakups, can't get laid or went through a messy divorce. Men that hate women and scream obscenities to them as well as engage in hate campaigns of doxxing and…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:10 AM
3

a lot of MRA is simply focused on bullshit, like being anti feminists Gee I wonder why that is!. It's not possible to effectively advocate for boys and men without criticising feminists, without saying feminists got it wrong. You can't help men without breaking down the previous system, and you can't do that without explaining WHY it's wrong. There's no way to realistically do that without attacking feminism. You can end up calling yourself another kind of feminist like Christina Hoff Sommers if…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:04 AM
2

You clearly didn't read much about this documentary. It's meant to be an investigation into both sides, where they're both represented fairly, and the story of a feminist documentary film maker's journey challenging her own beliefs.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:00 AM
1

Since Chris Roberts went off after KS and created his own fund raising platform I can't see why she couldn't allow people to continue to donate if she wanted to.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:59 AM
1

I wonder if they'll be anything like the Warren Farrell protest. It would be kinda good if they did really since that did wonders via the Streisand effect
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:57 AM
3

For future reference
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:54 AM
3

Debatable You might want to watch this.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:53 AM
2

Incremental changes make a big difference in the long run. People have been saying what you've said here about everything the MRM has done since I discovered it over 2 years ago. But we're a world away from where we were back then
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:52 AM
3

The analogy was used in the MRM before TRP sub reddit was named (which is not an MRA group, it's essentially a relationship advice group). The films title was also chosen before TRP sub was created.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:50 AM
4

It's never any one thing. It's always incremental changes. Things are VERY different from where we were about 2-3 years ago. I remember feminists used to make jokes about how if you turn the internet off MRA's disappeared. Well now feminists have made so many enemies we see them calling people MRA's even when they aren't. And consider South Park, it's never devoted this many episodes week after week to mocking one thing before. Look at all the ridiculous university campus issues that's happened …
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:40 AM
1

You don't think it's important why someone doesn't like something or someone, only that they don't? You could interpret it as an "inferiority" thing, but that's only because they are being seen as inferior by these women. I'm attracted to "good looking and successful" women, those attributes don't put me off. What puts me off is knowing the mindset is that's likely to go along with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/15 08:59 PM
1

Lol @ all the dancing back and forth around the goal posts you created since your first comment
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/15 08:51 PM
1

Do they say that? I thought the idea is that a rich good looking women was less 'attractive' because the chances are she'd be far harder to please in various ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/15 08:46 PM
1

You forgot sarcasm quotes around "equality activist". ;) Aside from how dumb the article is, it's funny that this is google translate yet the standard of English is practically on par with many similar English articles.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:01 AM
1

... Uh you seem to be missing the point here.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/15 09:25 PM
0

If that's what you want in a man that's fine. I'm just commenting on people using TRP as an example of selfish men. TRW is just as selfish.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/15 05:39 PM
2

LOL and they say TRP are selfish men!
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/15 04:44 PM
1

TRP is PUA, but not all PUA is TRP.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 04:43 AM
3

This is The Duluth Model in action. She is a victim, he was the abuser. He drove her to it. Her children may say they're afraid of her and have PTSD because they saw their father murdered and bleed to death right in front of them, but they just need to understand how she was driven to do it by their abusive father. She isn't a risk to the children, because she finally killed the abuser. The only tragedy is we had to lock her away for so long just because she killed someone. I mean in a way, he g…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:51 PM
2

She would've needed to stab him at least 10 times before we can be sure she might not be quite so innocent.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:10 PM
1

Sure, she was no angel either, it seems. No angel.... she only stabbed their father to death in front of them!
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:09 PM
4

But now it has nothing to do with it and should no longer be used because of their ridiculous views on women. You don't get to erase history. EDIT: Also, I don't think all of it is ridiculous, either. There does tend to be a lot of resentment and anger there, and that's not to say I wouldn't describe some of it as misogyny, but knowing where most of the anger is coming from is important. It isn't like it's "Manhood 101", those really are insane childish idiots and they really do hate everyone. T…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:03 PM
1

The red pill was a metaphor used within the MRM before the PUAs made /r/theredpill. It was also a title chosen before the creation of the sub.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 03:29 PM
2

It's only "not possible" by some defintion. People say this like it's some kind of self evident truth. What you're actually saying is that legally her consent is largely irrelevant. That's very different.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 06:33 PM
2

when things are equal as close to 1:1 as can be, a +17% wage disparity is found It's just not true that if you compare all things being equal that women are paid less and certainly not 17% less. Women are however paid more than men in a variety of jobs and careers, even male dominated fields like construction, as well as nevermarried childless women earning more than men. I just can't get over how this "wage gap" stuff is so wrong in so many ways and yet it just won't die.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/15 03:04 PM
7

It's not a stretch, this is literally the logic that's used to say there's a pay gap. They don't compare apples for apples. In fact, they refuse to, and when you point out what they're doing they get pissed off with you as if you're being difficult. They'll try and use statistics like this as much as they can get away with it, as soon as you point out how misleading it is they'll almost fall over themselves to move the goal posts. My answer is always that even if I accept their new figure, the o…
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/15 02:17 PM
1

Captain Hindsight saves the day: "Hey if that fire hadn't been real, then it would have been illegal tampering so it was totally right to prevent it from being pulled". Lol. No one is preventing the fire alarm being pulled in any of these scenarios except the one you keep trying to argue against. TIL: humans fall neatly into discrete and easily identifiable categories by which one can determine if an emergency is genuine or not. You're funny. What? You provided a bad analogy, sorry. TIL: people …
/r/MensRights21/10/15 06:15 PM
1

If If there is a fire then pulling a fire alarm isn't illegal tampering. If there is no fire then it is illegal tampering. What part of this are you stubbornly pretending to not understand? Washington Post: "Racist MRAs forbid Muslim women from pulling the fire alarm" I'm not interested in this anymore. How is that at all related? You clearly only read that first line and skipped the rest of my comment. Veil wearing Muslims always wear veils, feminist protesters covering their faces claim they o…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:03 PM
1

No word about preventing tampering. wut? You were the one that described what they were saying as that any attempt to pull a fire alarm would be prevented which would be a fire hazard. That's not what was suggested. If there's no actual fire or other relevant emergency, then any other use of a fire alarm I'm describing as 'illegal tampering'. The basis for the stupidity in defending this position lies in your and everybody else's unawareness of the nature of emergencies and extreme situations. Y…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 04:24 PM
1

They can still be identified a lot easier and also proves it was them (the protestors) There'll probably be filming anyway so you may even get lucky and capture footage of the same people unmasked and therefore even more identifiable. Also if they are caught trying to leave the scene there'll be no plausible deniability to hide behind.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:22 AM
1

Like I said, if you actually think about it, then you'll see that it's a really bad idea. I did, you jumped to the most unlikely scenario and then called people fools for something they never suggested. I would have thought that the suggestion of guarding fire alarms alone should raise more than an eyebrow but I guess I expected too much. I mean, the idea of restricting access to a safety measure that is, for good reason, designed for maximum accessibility doesn't seem odd. Or that posting a gua…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 09:27 PM
3

Well this has got to be awkward, the accused is female as well as the accusers. At least they're calling it "rape", but you know that's because the accusers are women. Maybe they'll try and get the law changed so legally it can, but then they've opened the door for women to be rapists and I'm not sure they're ready for that. I do notice from the article that I'm not sure it's reasonable to call it rape however, this part reads particularly laughable: "The other party later informed me that the s…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:27 PM
1

Yea contact her and see if you get anywhere.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:24 PM
1

I figured you noticed that you were already corrected. I have no idea whatsoever how you can justify leaping to the conclusion that saying the fire alarms be monitored so stop illegal tampering was a fire risk. You just invented this unlikely scenario from nothing.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:23 PM
2

I think they will. They're arrogant and self righteous enough. If some of them won't many more will, because they think they have easy arguments against her through reading sites like Manboobs (wehuntedthemammoth)
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:28 AM
1

Karen seems pretty willing to do it if asked. She also seems quite "cheap" in the nicest possible way. If you really want her to come get together some money so she doesn't lose out of it, pay her expenses etc, and I'm sure she'd even meet you personally for some overpriced coffee.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:25 AM
2

Yea I just hope her lungs and liver can take her abuse!
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:22 AM
1

I love Alison because she has some really interesting new ways of looking at things that really makes me think. Warren Farrell and Karen have done this as well but Alison certainly brings a unique perspective for me. Though I do worry sometimes about her mental state though as sometimes it seems like she works herself up into anger a little too strongly recently. I hope she's taking care of herself, takes a step back and doesn't allow all this to get too under her skin. It's a beautiful passion …
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:19 AM
2

THINK! I think you should take your own advice
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:14 AM
1

Official repercussions almost pales in comparison to internet justice. So far they've always claimed false flag, "the more [they] fuck up the more we look like rock stars baby"
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:12 AM
1

How about secret cameras so we can plaster the culprits all over the internet
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:10 AM
1

In the UK at least you get a very large tax break on death, if that's important.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/15 09:20 AM
1

But getting married gives you a tax 'break', I thought?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/15 01:29 AM
2

Not to mention it seems to have the highest concentration of the most famous MRA's as well as dramas like the Warren Farrell protest, or the 'Don't Be That Girl' campaign, or the RooshV protest thing. Considering how bad much of Sweden is meant to be I'm surprised there's not more out of there. Maybe a language barrier? I wonder. Canada may just be a perfect storm of insane activist feminists in an English speaking country with feminist friendly legislation to lead to so much push back.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/15 10:09 PM
2

Because it isn't an accurate way to view society.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/15 12:28 AM
1

Being older typically involves more than just different looks
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/15 12:25 AM
1

She could divorce him, as he could her. But he was still responsible for her and paying her to live in the conditions she was accustomed to. Sex was assumed in a marriage and usually the only acceptable place to have sex, which is why you got married in the first place. Either the husband or wife could divorce if the other claimed they weren't fulfilling the "marital duties" as it were
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/15 11:54 PM
4

So basically this is what happens when you try and take an analogy too far. You could at least try understand his point. It's not about the gun.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/15 11:07 PM
1

They may be 'less common' than they were. But that's only for at least 2 reasons I can see. When no fault divorce became an option this allowed many to break up and win big. This would've also been a time where the earning gap between men and women, and so the wife and husband, would've been greator than today. The second reason is that women are more likely to wait to marry and have kids until later in life (men too), as well as earn more and be more highly educated. Another possible reason is …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/15 11:00 PM
2

Depends where you are. In some areas it really is that bad. But there's more reason than insane arcane alimony laws to not get married. I feel sorry for people living in a place that decides you're effectively married by common law if you live together for more than 6 months or something. But luckily I'm in the UK and there is no such thing, in a place like Canada however it would be incredibly risky for many men to have a serious relationship where you can't even live together. I guess the upsi…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/15 10:47 PM
28

The issue isn't regarding women being more or less targeted, it's about us seeing it as harmless if it happens to a male.
/r/MensRights11/10/15 12:07 PM
1

Technically it's AFTER school. You finish "school" at 16.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 06:26 PM
3

Also pretty weird because feminists have always claimed politics is abusive to women
/r/MensRights08/10/15 10:05 PM
3

But it's only radical tumblr feminists with no power, really!
/r/MensRights08/10/15 10:04 PM
1

Thanks! I don't know if I changed your opinion but hopefully I helped see another way of seeing it
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 01:54 PM
-1

I put that at the end, but maybe your attention span is even worse than that
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/15 07:20 PM
3

You're totally right! Skip to TL;DR if you don't want my stimulant fuelled longer response. EDIT: Also PS: She did literally say to the UN, out loud, that saying she "sucks" is equivalent and should be treated as violence. This is kind of the point, she doesn't actually make any distinction if you listen to her rhetoric. A big clue should be that she never recognises any of her critics as anything other than misogynst harassers. Her and people like Laurie Penny present the issue as literally "us…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/15 03:06 PM
1

You know, it's refreshing to see some honesty. high five.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/15 08:42 AM
3

She shouldn't be arrested, no way. Fired and dragged through the mud yes. They did bring this on themselves though, they really didn't think this would backfire. How deliciously ironic that one of the first victims of their anti-freespeech lobbying efforts is one of their own. I suppose her telling them that her attacks against men and white people doesn't count didn't work. I really hope if Anita S and Zoe Q get anywhere with this cyberbullying - I don't want people to be able to say I suck - i…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/15 08:32 AM
1

There seems to be a mix as far as I've come across, but does seem to side more on the traditional
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/15 06:47 AM
6

Lol what a great example of why PUA, Red Pill and MRA's aren't all the same thing. You're basically a tradionalist, I wonder if you know that
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/15 08:59 PM
5

Ahhhhh yes. I remember wondering why FTB haven't told him to take his 'misogynist hate speech' to AVFM yet. I would say it's only a matter of time.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:10 PM
8

Ally Fog, why does that name ring a bell?
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:33 PM
2

That's what I was trying to imply. Throwing their phrase back at them though I think is missing the point. It's less about "teach women not to rape", the problem is more that we don't teach women to sexually respect men and instead think that any sexual contact a man gets he should be grateful for, or at least shrug off, or he's just a gay whiney baby. If you look at how many women behave towards male strippers, or toward male versions of "booth babes", it's like mayhem. If you see how men condu…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:12 PM
1

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet but had she had his baby he'd probably be liable for child support at 18
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:36 AM
1

Apparently in your world 11 year olds have no tastes, all want to have sex despite only just starting puberty, and there is no such thing as homosexuality. You must have come from /all. This is how the mainstream thinks folks
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:33 AM
2

Yea, he didn't enjoy it, but fuck him right? Oh... wait...
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:31 AM
2

Ahh so all we need to do is tell little girls and boys it's not wrong and then adults can have sex with them! They couldn't possibly not want it anyway, they just need to be told it's not wrong. I wonder how it feels to have made such a creepy pro-pedo argument. What age is too low btw? Is 10 too young, how about 8? Or is younger even better because they have even more chance of believing it's not wrong?
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:28 AM
1

lol yea that's what the case was about, right /s
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:26 AM
1

Just goes to show, she got away with it anyway
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:25 AM
1

Where is this "mainstream" feminism you talk about, if the bad kind is just a small minority of radicals?
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:24 AM
1

Yea but it's "he" for "she" don't you know ;)
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:22 AM
2

I don't see a joke
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:21 AM
1

Yea, butt fuck it
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:20 AM
1

Oh dear. Care to come back and defend this comment, or would you prefer to delete it in shame?
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:18 AM
1

What the hell does "narrowed the arithmetic age gap" mean anyway? Is it different to just an "age gap"?
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:16 AM
1

U wot m8? FAK OFF!
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:11 AM
1

Ahahaha wow... I got about 3 paragraphs in and when I read the father had also had a "relationship" with her I had to stop to comment. She sure is the prime demographic for the people on the Jeremy Kyle show
/r/MensRights06/10/15 03:09 AM
1

We met on WhatsYourPrice[1] . .... -_- Also just read your "shit test" comment. Whoooooooooo. From my standpoint you're asking for trouble. And she's already talking about kids? I hope you make sure you're being "safe" as much as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/15 11:03 PM
1

Honestly, I really don't actually know much of anything about this story other than essentially the headline and I haven't had a chance to read any more about it yet. So I don't quite know what you're refering to. I'm literally only going off the poster saying this big dude that as I understand it actually did hit her but wasn't immediately arrested and assumed to be the perpetrator. If a woman gets arrested over the man she would have had to have done something really bad.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/10/15 12:29 AM
1

I don't know much about the case. I just know if a man that looks like he does, was seen as the victim of her, she must have done something really bad to make it impossible for officers to think otherwise
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 10:54 PM
10

but will vehemently defend the phrase 'not all muslims'"? The whole thing about defending Islam is really bizarre. They SHOULD be vehemently against this religion. This is an actual patriarchal religion that has been the inspiration for innumerable acts of cruelty to women for many hundreds of years, not even counting today! Yet bewilderingly it's common to see them blanketly defending this "patriarchy", but attack secular society in a place like the US and UK over all manor of trivial things li…
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 07:11 PM
2

in pleading my case through conversations in the comments, I was perma-banned from the sub Dude I'm surprised you made it one comment before they banned you. Congrats though because they probably autobanned you from many subs
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 07:08 PM
19

According to the article he did admit to hitting her with a broom stick. When a man does something like that, especially one so tall and big, and the police STILL see him as the victim you know she did something really bad.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 07:06 PM
1

Well look, I think you're all being really unfair. She was called a "cunt" and that triggered her from life long oppression and abuse, on the count of being female. Obviously this is battered women syndrome and she deserves our help and that evil little patriarchal nazi cis scumlord that called her that slave slur should be thrown in jail, it's only a shame our law stops us from stamping on his cock until it's only mushy flesh!!!!!!!!!!!!
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/15 07:03 PM
2

I know. I said the same exact thing. The point is the "GS" part of the degree isn't the relevant part. You might want to check how this started...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 09:33 PM
3

Being a graduate of Harvard will do that. The GS bit is only going to increase your status with people in those circles.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 08:35 PM
1

Then it wouldn't be selfishness.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 07:53 PM
12

That's because the way they see it men that can't attract women are losers and worthy of mockery. On the other hand the women that can't get men are winners, because the men are losers for not measuring up to their high standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 05:52 PM
1

PATROAATISUM BE THE ONLY DRUG I NEED, SON!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 05:49 PM
4

No smoking in the house is fair enough, tobacco stinks
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:50 AM
2

Are you sure it's not more BJ's?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:47 AM
1

Well you know if you can afford to take sex for granted then you're surely going to see it very differently from someone who can't. If you go look at the deadbedrooms sub the women there seem to feel the same way the men do about it. It's almost as if leveling the playing field shows men and women start to see things a lot more similarly.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:46 AM
4

Ah well there you go, they can still complain about that
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:40 AM
2

WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBRR ONE! 'MERICA UZ THA BESTET COUNTRAI EN THAT THEE GOSH DARN'D FREE WORLD!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:38 AM
5

Well now that's just silly. A GS degree doesn't have much earning potential, which means the pool of men for them would technically be greater than for a woman who's educated in something with high earning potential
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:11 AM
12

There aren't more women than men and that's not what the article says either... not accounting for the headline.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:09 AM
24

... Uh huh... I'm so surprised! (/s) ... They don't mean there are less men, they mean there are more men earning less than them and men are more reluctant to marry or want to put marrying off till they are older. Funnily enough these are two things you'd think feminists should be happy about considering the history of their campaigning. The thing is women are also putting off marrying till they're older, but as we can see so many women want to marry when they want to marry and there must be som…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 10:07 AM
1

First of all fuck you for that scream compilation video, I'll be looking for that everywhere now... haha I thought most people already knew about it actually. Fair enough, so can you tell me what it is I should look for? As I noted I've seen a lot of women go out with men who are not traditionally masculine. The key phrase in my comments is "to varying degrees". Sometimes it might not always be obvious, and maybe you need to ask a few more specific questions. A super simple obvious example might…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 05:29 PM
1

It's difficult to discuss the finer details you're bringing up because feminists themselves have very split opinions on these issues. Well that's true, but we're talking about what is or isn't hypocritical, it's just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with that. You don't have to defend all of feminism. I brought up their concept of "benevolent sexism" because I wanted to remind you that what I'm talking about is commonly understood to be a contradiction though they may phrase it differently. L…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 03:40 PM
1

Because if you are looking for something within a relationship, that's not the same as expecting it universally for all of the opposite sex. But we're talking about a mindset that leads to both (perceived) positive and negative outcomes for women. Feminists will criticise not only the outcome but the mindset that brought it about. But the mindset also causes positive outcomes for women, so if we've already decided the mindset is harmful, wrong, or "misogyny" (etc) then it must be hypocrisy to sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 02:30 PM
1

No, I don't believe so. I think it'd only be hypocritical if you believed all women should act that way. Do you accept the definition of a hypocrisy is holding to two or more mutually exclusive positions at the same time that contradict each other? How is it not a contradiction to be "down with gender roles" while at the same time expecting these exact gender roles when it suits me? This would be hypocrisy yes... but how many feminists do that? Even the ones who do think expecting them to be fem…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 02:08 PM
2

imo a hypocrisy only exists if this person has an expectation these roles are upheld among all men Why can we say it's only hypocrisy if it's expected of "all" men? If they say they only expect men they're interested in to be "chivalrous" and "gentlemanly" toward them, does that mean they aren't still hypocrites if they also say "down with gender roles!!"? Let's turn it around for a moment. Say I said I expect all the women I want to be with to be a traditional woman; to cook, clean, etc etc etc…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 01:42 PM
2

Well to be completely honest, if some guy is aware that's what the relationship will be and is willing to provide that lifestyle, more power to the both of them. Again, if I could get away with it myself I would. But your post seems to assume women or feminists in general expect this behaviour from men. I disagree. Most women don't expect most men to be sugar daddies, that's a pretty niche thing. I don't know exactly your position is on all this so I won't yet call you out as hypocritical, but a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 01:24 PM
3

Some aren't "cam whores" they're looking for some kind of sugar daddy, and many women can get something like that to varying degrees. The thing about feminism is they need (in theory) to get women to stop behaving this way, Ie. Expecting or relying on men to take care of them. They're very resistant to doing this and the only women they seem happy to attack are traditionalists and anti-feminist MRA's. (edit to add: And sex workers, they'll attack them, but only by proxy by talking over them as i…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 12:56 PM
1

STFU betch I'm 31 and people still say I look 18. Har. Seriously though (but no joke they do) because I feel like a bit of a Dorian Grey saying mens looks go downhill at 30 doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There seems to be many guys at 20 that seem to look damn near middle aged 40+, in a bad way like you described. But then you get guys who who are early-mid 20's that look like fucking models that to ME seem mid 30's in that weird state of looking late "20's/30'sish" But I look at women and h…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 12:38 PM
2

Hmm I think it would be interesting to see if your tastes change as you age. So you may start seeing older men more attractive as you reach closer to 30.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 12:25 PM
1

Firstly if you're suggesting being an MRA is necessarily tied to "demonisation of women" you'd definitely need to demonstrate that part, which you won't be able to do. Secondly, I don't understand how you think the ideas about gender relations and attraction commonly discussed in the RP would be of no interest to those that aren't themselves specifically looking for sexual strategy. I also don't understand why you think you have to agree with all of X in order to defend certain ideas X has, or e…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/15 08:48 PM
2

Huh? How did you jump to that?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/15 10:37 AM
3

Are you honestly trying to say men are more picky than women?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/15 07:04 AM
2

Ok but it is still rather a lot less likely that she was so uneducated she didn't know she could say no to sex. If she was raped it's far more likely to be with this part about not being told she wouldn't be able to leave. I think id need some real convincing she just didn't know she could refuse
/r/MensRights26/09/15 10:06 PM
3

Lol if women "aren't that picky", how on earth would you describe men?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/15 09:55 PM
1

Maybe he just likes to discuss the subject? I'm like that. I'd identify as a MRA but I don't feel like defending the "RP" itself but I typically do defend aspects of it
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/15 09:52 PM
1

So they could vote guilty but no to death penalty?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:58 PM
1

So he didn't overturn the conviction right? He just changed his own sentence?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:24 PM
1

hit me, Baby, one more time
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:23 PM
1

Someone's name... Is Baby? o_O Also I still don't see this as making much of any difference.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:49 PM
3

I don't get it. Doesn't a jury only rule guilty/no guilty? I thought it was always a judge to sentence someone
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:48 PM
10

Lol, if the genders were flipped the boy wouldn't even think there was anything to complain about. Even if he did feel violated he'd know no one would care
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:46 PM
3

Sorry you're right, I thought it was a discussion
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/15 03:44 PM
7

Who the fuck hijacked "equity" to mean the exact opposite of what it really means: "You get what you earn" ? They do it for the same reason 'racism' and 'sexism' to them don't mean what the dictionary says, so they can claim you can't be sexist to men or racist to white people. So they like word 'equality', but they need to redefine it so it can mean what they want. They feel like they want to use the word, so it must be right.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 11:36 PM
3

Haha he deleted his comment! (I was able to take a screenshot if anyone was interested) I love this bit.... Equality is equal opportunity. Equity is equal outcome. You fucking halfwit. Lol what? He reminds me of the guy that insisted that "their" and "there", as well as "your", you're" sound different, not only that, if we just said them correctly people would remember when to spell them differently. To make things even more crazy he then insisted that we should say things the way they're spelle…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 11:26 PM
1

aka, equity[1] . If this is how you see equality, then your concept of equality is meaningless and not based in reality. We can never be truly equal in the way you are defining it, no matter what we do, not even hypothetically.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 11:21 PM
5

So if marking is blind what's the problem? They claim the atmosphere is too masculine and women aren't pushed as hard as the men. Check the article she linked.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 11:18 PM
39

You know what I seem to notice? If women and girls appear to out perform men and boys at something, everyone just accepts it's because they're better. On the other hand if men out perform women there must be a problem with the test, or the school's atmosphere, or something. Like when girls perform better in school they don't think this is an "equality" issue or think the environment is too "feminised". It reminds me of the wage gap again. There's plenty of jobs, even male dominated jobs, where w…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 11:09 PM
1

That's the thing though, it's impossible to tell the difference
/r/PussyPassDenied20/09/15 08:29 PM
1

Lol I'd say that's great satire, but you seem serious?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 04:05 PM
1

What IS so wrong with LMR? I admit I don't really pay much attention to TRP but I have read various pickup artist materials and all I've seen is "LMR" misrepresented.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 01:37 PM
1

TRP is tame as fuck compared to many subs. If they did deserve to get banned they should be nowhere near the start of the list
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 01:36 PM
1

I find lots of things attractive but instead of just listing things like others have already done, I will say the number turn on for me is someone who shows me they are sexually into me. Girls I didn't find sexually attractive as well as girls I found so out of my league I didn't pay them a second thought other than thinking they're pretty have become insanely more attractive once I thought they were into me. Like I just look at them in a whole other way
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 01:33 PM
3

Bing Bing! Glad someone got to the bottom of this so easily haha.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 01:30 PM
1

You do know that's abnormal right? I mean that's not to say you should feel bad or anything but some people assume the way they think is how others also think
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 01:28 PM
2

What mainstream feminists are MRAs ignoring?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 07:11 PM
2

What sort of things have feminists done that tumblr feminism is supposedly overshadowing?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 07:10 PM
1

I have never seen any woman complain about being hit on by a guy in a bar who took the hint and who was polite. Do you know what they don't like? A random guy grabbing them or stupid one liners. And you judge success by the fact you don't listen to women. I judge it by the fact women keep insisting they don't like the street thing so it is safer to flirt with women in places designed for flirting and to do so with women who are up for it rather than get mad at women who aren't. You've apparently…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 08:32 PM
1

No my point was never about satisfaction, my point was about orgasming. So why does it matter, when an orgasm can be completely unsatisfactory? Why is orgasm relevant to your point? I'm pretty sure it was you that said you're ok with a fleshlight. Why? You realise your arguments are exactly the same as one's many women use against fleshlights, right? Your line in the sand is just in a different place to their's.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 08:11 PM
1

I have NEVER heard a woman who was angry about how I approached them in a bar. Really? Hey I think you are kind of fun, fancy coming up to the bar for a drink and a conversation? Oh? You don't? Sorry for bothering you! Have a good night! AND DONE. No one's ever gone "goodness! That was terrible" or "I felt scared" or "THAT WAS SO AWFUL" It's quite interesting you say this actually, because it reveals you can only see this from your own experience. Where you think being hit on in a bar is always …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 08:09 PM
1

Your whole point is about satisfaction! If it wasn't you have no argument here! I wish you would just accept you "feel" it's weird and not try and justify it with all these inconsistent and incoherent arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:59 PM
1

Sure. Now go read how the Red Pill talk about women they date. Do you think they are nice? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not trying to defend guys at RP? No. I specifically mentioned bars and clubs You specifically also mentioned the street was okay, then in the next comment you said it wasn't. You said street harassment happens on the street, then you said street harassment can also happen at a funeral. You're getting yourself all confused. Hitting on someone at a funeral is harassme…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:52 PM
1

I am not talking about how long it takes you or how satisfactory it is. uh, yes you did... "Guys can get the full on same stimulation with their hand". It isn't the same feeling, it isn't the same kind of orgasm. So, what exactly is your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:45 PM
1

You said a man can orgasm more easily as if there is only two states orgasm or not orgasm. I can have great sex and not cum and feel more satisfied than I would be if I just masturbated on my own
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:38 PM
1

But again... a man might orgasm but that doesn't mean a lot. When women orgasm it's usually much more intense.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:20 PM
2

That's kind of what you are pushing. Being nice to get sex. Not being nice cause you are genuinely nice. What's wrong with treating someone nice that you want to have sex with? Why can't someone be nice, but also treat someone extra nice if they hope to sexually attract that person? Because, you know, everyone does that. By definition "nice excludes the red pill". Again, I never said I'm RP or promoting what they do. Street Harassment does not take place in a club, pub or a bar. Street Harassmen…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 06:37 PM
4

Guys can get the full on same stimulation with their hand in a basic sense. Uh... no they can't. Real sex is rather a lot better than one's own hand. Why do you think the fleshlight is considered superior to their own hand? A man might be able to orgasm easily but that doesn't mean it was all that satisfying. I wonder, how much would a woman have to spend on sex toys before it would be weird for you? OP called it social suicide to have something like this for a man, does this mean female sex mac…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 06:23 PM
2

Because you seem to think that being nice JUST to have sex should entitle you to it and because you think being nice just to have sex actually genuinely makes you nice. That's something different. Now you're talking about something else. You said if you're nice to someone you want to just have sex with you're not actually nice. You said if you do something good for someone and wouldn't do it if they don't respond a certain way, you're actually not a good person. Now you're talking about believin…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 06:09 PM
1

Yes but you aren't getting the difference between being nice SOLELY to have sex or being nice irrespective of wanting to have sex or not. No I do get it. You said you have no problem with a man just wanting to have sex with a woman, but at the same time you do have a problem with a man being nice to a woman he just wants to have sex with. I'm not sure how he will be able to get this woman to want to have sex with him without treating her nicely. Maybe you can reconcile this. Really? I have never…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 05:46 PM
1

I know, but that still has nothing to do with what you said.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 05:25 PM
3

No. But are you being nice SOLELY to have sex? Then you aren't being nice. You are pretending. Nice people don't have ulterior motives. Again though, what is wrong with being nice to someone you want to have sex with? Usually people try to be nice to people they hope to have sex with. In a bar I might. Seeing as you said everyone likes it, are you saying all those women who have a problem with this don't count as human, or do you deny they exist? You do good things because you are good. Not beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 05:22 PM
3

Are you helping out a woman and being nice SOLELY to get in her pants? No? Then you probably aren't a "Nice Guy". Is it wrong for a man to only want sex? Everyone likes being put on a pedestal mate. Even guys. I know there are guys sexier than me, I still smile when the woman I love tells me that I am sexy. Or hell when anyone pays a compliment. Everyone does, except for all those women who complain about it, of course? IF you want someone to be with you. You are going to have to treat people wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 05:03 PM
3

then they have the right to gaslight me and report a false rape accusation Actually... uh... they don't have that right.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 04:58 PM
1

That's exactly right. I'd say the majority of men want that and the others that don't ask mainly don't because they feel it's awkward and a bit weird to ask someone they're paying and when they know they're probably seeing several people that day. That's why it's called the "girlfriend experience" because they want to feel like they're desired. If men really just wanted sex with an dehumanised "object", the "girlfriend" experience wouldn't be something that was popular. As usual sex in real life…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:34 PM
4

The structure of prostitution encourages empathy to be effectively ‘turned-off’. The thing about prostitution and not seeing women as "human" is that contrary to these sex-negative feminists, most sex workers will tell you a large part of their job is talking, being a sort of therapist, etc. If you look at "reviews" for sex workers what men want is a woman that makes them feel desired, so a hot body that is just totally passionless and bored is seen as very bad, whereas even a below average look…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:55 PM
2

The thing is this isn't even an exaggeration for some women. She even thinks men being able to have sex without women is going to destroy society somehow lol. Can we call this male slut shaming yet?
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:52 PM
4

"We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women," she said. But dildos that look and feel like real cocks are ok, apparently! Men being able to have sex without women being needed at all! OMG this will destroy society!!!!! /s :P IMO "sex robots" will soon be overtaken by sex robots linked to VR. They don't need to look real, just feel and move real. They don;t need to get the eyes …
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:25 PM
1

Okay but you can say the same thing for men, and we actually have more evidence for men's varying taste in women than women in men. But shall we say there is no reasonable generalisations we can make about what men generally find attractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/15 10:37 PM
5

And third, circumcision reduces sexual performance. It can be seen as the difference that a normal European man has between no condom and a condom on. Severed nerve-endings, a glans with harder skin and less movement in the foreskin make sex worse. Some people deny this, even men that have foreskins that know how sensitive their exposed penis is if they roll their foreskin down. Some even say it doesn't reduce sensation while at the same time say it's good because it helps men last longer. Like …
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:49 PM
12

In the context of how many people get circumcised, that's very little A totally needless procedure that can result in a spectrum of sexual dysfunction ranging from nerve damage to complete removal of the penis, even if it only happens very rarely, is a perfectly good reason not to do it. If someone wants to take that risk as an adult they can do what they like.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:47 PM
6

It absolutely results in less stimulation, it makes no sense to think it doesn't
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:45 PM
8

When they get it wrong is very VERY harmful, when there's no beneficial reason this risk is good enough not to.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:43 PM
1

It may be a complete lie, but it could be true. I can imagine a scenario where what he said happened in a vague way, but where his retelling of it or his memory and interpretation of it is highly distorted. Assuming that's the case, if he was critical of his own beliefs he'd have been able to question how well he'd remembered it and realise either his memory was faulty or invented it entirely
/r/MensRights09/09/15 09:08 PM
1

Of course there is. Btw I'd say you'd need to expand on what you'd expect by "willing to improve major" (some odd grammar there), as that's going to mean different things to different people. I thought you meant in the swinger sense when I read the headline.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/15 07:21 PM
1

that I was an American with a circumcised dick. I've never had these comments you talk about and I'm British and circumcised. They were interested in you because you're AMERICAN, not because of your lack of dick skin. If what you were saying was true then Jewish men in the UK would be considered super attractive, wouldn't they? You're literally defending your uncut cock by saying the extra work to keep it clean and unstinky isn't that big of a deal. LOL. Oh noes!! Someone has to wash their cock …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:40 PM
1

You need to get yourself some rose extract enemas.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:36 PM
1

But it smells and it's gross. So wash it then. Women get it too if they don't wash. If I don't wash my genitals I still smell even though I'm circumcised.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:35 PM
1

It depends on how much you're circumcised but for me I don't, but I'd rather have more of a need to just WASH MY COCK every day (oh no! so difficult!!) than be without the extra sensitivity and nerve endings lost to me.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:35 PM
21

Probably my favorite argument for pro-circumcision has to be the doublethink where they'll often tell you circumcision is actually a good thing because you can last longer, but in the very same breath they'll argue it doesn't reduce sensitivity and that research shows it doesn't. It's like someone saying that condoms help you last longer but at the same time don't reduce sensitivity. It's insane! Like how do they think it's enabling you to last longer?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:32 PM
1

No. I was just responding to the principle
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/15 11:49 AM
2

Define "do anything to get it." People have goals in life. Often, they have to be willing to "give it their all" (do everything/anything) to accomplish those goals. Believe me I've taken drugs that made me so horny it was debilitating to my life. Like I literally couldn't get anything done and when it finally abated it was a relief. I'd say when it gets to the stage where it interferes with your life this way it's a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 09:20 PM
1

I doubt it's clutching at straws it's just about what can be considered good evidence or not, even if you're correct
/r/MensRights05/09/15 04:37 PM
1

What's the 70% figure from then?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 10:30 PM
1

Ahh yea sorry I was on a phone. Would you say their study is more accurate than the other?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:05 PM
1

Those that have experienced DV is roughly equal between men and women. The 70% figure is about perpetration in in non-reciprocally violent relationships ie. one sided.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:00 PM
1

Where does it say that?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:58 PM
1

Yet we know that, for example, very young women get a disproportionate amount of messages from older men. Are young women known for not wanting to have sex with older men? (Sarcasm) And if a 20 year old girl gets 100 messages, 50% of which are from men over 40, while 30% under from men in their 20's, does that mean she has more or less choice than if she had only received the 20 somethings messages? If I wanted sex with girls who are around 5 foot with DD boobs and a slim size 0 figure, if I get…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 04:28 PM
1

That was my previous post: Yes well I do assume your mind hasn't changed from post to post unless you tell me. Anything sexual. That's a bit vague... Does that include masturbation? Do you believe men in the "real world" don't masturbate if they can't find someone to have sex with? Do you think the desire for masturbation is separate to a desire to have sex with an actual person? so I assume that /u/PemBayliss wanted to imply that in fact, due to male sex drive, for men, not getting sex is indee…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 03:58 PM
1

That, again, doesn't make getting sex any easier. It's bizzaroland to have this argument with you. It literally makes getting sex easier... I'm not sure how you can keep saying it doesn't. If I want some chocolate and I want a KitKat but all I have are 10 other chocolate bars I don't really feel like, it's still easier for me to eat chocolate than someone with no chocolate bars. The more people that are attracted to you means you're in a position to be more picky about the looks and personality …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 03:40 PM
1

I don't think that the men at TRP can't restrain themselves. Okay.. but you did literally just say "yes" that you were previously implying TRP men can't restrain themselves. I've said that people on TRP will repeatedly make an argument that boils down to "men can't restrain themselves". Restrain themselves from doing what?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 03:05 PM
1

I'm glad you finally understand the difference. The answer is that a man needs to be far more attractive to get the sort of attention that a below average woman can easily get.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 03:05 PM
1

Jeez ...and you complain about my analogies.... I think it's telling that you compared being desired by people that wouldn't be your ideal choice, or that you aren't particularly attracted to, to being verbally abused and being told you're worthless and that you should die. It's like me saying being attractive to all but those who are top tier model good looks is just like being attractive to no one so long as I only want those highly attractive women at the top. But it's worse, because it's lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:25 PM
1

Ok so I refer to my first question. What makes you think those at TRP can't restrain themselves? And what do you think that means?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:16 PM
1

You asked what the difference is. If you can't see the difference between being extremely popular and being liked by absolutely everyone then I don't know how else to explain it
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:15 PM
1

You told me the point I was making was bad because drinking is necessary to survive. The point is not reliant on sex being necessary for survival. And sex is not just enjoyment, you might as well play down the emotional influence on a child that was left alone in a room for most of their lives. It's just human contact, you don't need that to survive, so why does it matter? I don't believe you're so callous and heartless to actually follow through and be consistent with your logic, I assume you a…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 02:52 AM
1

I already replied to this. There is a difference between being very popular and being liked by everyone. Just because Brad Pitt can get still get rejected that doesn't mean I'm just as attractive as he is, or that its equally as easy for me to attract women as him.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 02:45 AM
1

You implied RP men can't restrain themselves, or that TRP says men can't restrain themselves, by saying that in the real world men can restrain themselves
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 02:42 AM
1

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between being incredibly popular and no one disliking you. Just because you're very popular doesn't mean everyone likes you. For example, someone like Natalie Portman or Brad Pitt could get sex whenever they want because they're incredibly popular and considered incredibly attractive by a very large number of people. That isn't the same thing as saying they won't ever be turned down if they asked everyone on the planet Or to look at it another way.…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:38 AM
1

Where did you get the impression the person you're taking to can't "restrain" himself?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:37 AM
2

I think if you look through my posting history you'll be rather hard pressed to find a reason to call me "blue pill". Funnily enough someone else on this thread just said I was RP when I disagreed with her, go figure!
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:23 AM
1

You don't biologically "need" to be around other people to survive either but we know people who are isolated from everyone else usually go loopy. By your logic a kid that is abused is no worse off than a kid that wasn't abused, because it's still alive. You're playing down the importance of emotional wellbeing Also, it was an analogy. The point of the comparison wasn't about life and death. You ignored the actual point I was making, which I even wrote out at the end if somehow it wasn't obvious…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 01:20 AM
6

I said the person who does the inviting should assume they wil pay and the attendee should offer to split And it just so happens that the expectation is men ask. Convenient! I wonder if you see a difference between asking someone if they want to have dinner with you, and asking if they will let you buy them dinner. Because when I ask a friend if they want to go and eat out somewhere I'm not offering to pay for them and they know that. If I did buy them dinner anyway they'd probably be grateful a…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 12:43 AM
3

You must be real sheltered and socially dysfunctional to not see why it would be interpreted as patronising and sarcastic
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 05:22 PM
1

I'll put it like this. Let's say there are two people and they are thirsty and in a place where water isn't easily accessable. One person has 50-100+ options of different bottles of different types of drink. The other has no bottles. Both people could still go out and try and find a drink they really really like. Just because the one person has lots of bottles of drink around doesn't mean they want any of those particular drinks. Which person has an easier time finding a drink? According to your…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 05:18 PM
1

Then it comes down to your definition of race but I think next time perhaps you should lead with this first to avoid misunderstanding
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 02:55 PM
9

Really? If people are interested in sex with me it's not easier for me to have sex? Are you on another planet?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 02:50 PM
7

lol yea I must be lying, of course!!! Btw I never said I was RP, you do know anyone can post here right? I also never said I would be attracted to all the women, I said id be flattered. It is desirable to be desired by women even if they aren't the level of attractiveness id prefer, than to be totally invisible or to have to work hard changing myself to be not be. Most men would be flattered to get so many messages because most men don't get hit on by women actively persuing them, so even if the…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:44 AM
9

You're really barking up the wrong tree here. I feel somewhat flattered even if men hit on me let alone women I personally don't feel attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:37 AM
2

Why do you think copyright doesn't exist for a non professional amateur photo? It makes no difference. The only legal issue is convincing the court you own the picture, but whether or not you are a professional or not is completely irrelevant. As someone who makes music for a living it is irritating to read on YT videos people asking if such and such music is "copyrighted" and if they can use it on their videos. It's all copyrighted as soon as it's recorded! You're right you can be sued even if …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:33 AM
9

I don't really understand what you're saying here or how it relates to what I wrote
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:30 AM
3

Not true actually. Technically copyright is created at the time you create something. It doesn't need a copyright logo in the picture for it to be legally yours. If the the person who took the picture you're talking about wanted to they could take legal action.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:21 AM
3

Almost, you're not totally wrong but technically speaking all they can do is ask you to remove it and if you don't they can sue. That's how all those revenge porn sites get away with it. They will remove content if asked to
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:18 AM
3

Taking the 5th ey
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:16 AM
2

The experiment to be really thorough needs at least 4-5 different levels of attactiveness for the men and women, but to show it isn't some kind of fluke to repeat the same experiment a few times preferably in different locations. If I had enough time id do it, it would be quite a simple thing just time consuming
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:15 AM
4

To me, when I hear that, it just means they believe it's a lot easier for men to get laid than she thinks
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:12 AM
2

Also depends on location and age. Young 18-25 from California probably aren't going to be looking for the same thing as 35-50 year olds from Alaska or something
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:10 AM
11

What do you want, a cookie? Why does it seem like you think this one time is something relevant? Do you know how many rejections men go through like this before he gets a positive response? So while a man will go through hundreds of rejections and being ignored after attempting to initiate while a girl who easily gets hit on without needing to do any initiating herself tries it one time and is either rejected or ignored and acts like somehow it's the same thing. Is it really so hard for some wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:01 AM
8

Well there are actually, that's why men complain about how difficult it is to get any interest in online dating. Getting hundreds of offers vs maybe a few if you're lucky isn't equal
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 03:57 AM
3

So do you now accept that it's fair to generalise about behaviour? I don't see the point in debating a specific behavior if you don't accept that it's fair to generalise in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 12:07 AM
1

Many of those are identical. But those that differ ? He'll have one version or the other in a 50:50 split. Except someone who appears white can still have non-white ancestry. Also, speaking about "black" and "white" in this sense is pretty odd and it's a strange how you can be saying that race is a social construct and yet also talking this way about black and white genetics at the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 10:45 PM
2

But it's ok to generalize what women find attractive? Because You sure seem to be interpreting my comments strangely. I don't think it's wrong to generalise for men or women. Sounds like you're making a baseless assumption about what you think women are generally attracted to. Women are/aren't attracted to indifference any more/less than men are. That is the only fair generalization that can be logically made on this topic. Because you think it's illogical, or because you believe it's wrong to g…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 10:07 PM
2

I didn't talk about what "all" men find attractive, I said "generally". When talking about a propensity of a certain population/demographic to a behaviour you have to talk in generalities. If it isn't reasonable to generalise then things like statistics are worthless.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 09:38 PM
1

Things like bone structure, skin color and height are obviously not social constructs. You've taken the idea that there is barely any relevant biological difference between races too far. His genes are exactly 50:50 black and white. Genes don't really work that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 09:35 PM
1

Just in case anyone finds it relevant... I remember an ex at 19 telling me she'd only been with 5 guys including me, but it turned out she didn't count hooking up with random people/friends of friends at parties. She may well have been telling the truth about the number when it came to full sex (though even that may have been a lie) but she clearly was not including all "everything but sex" stuff she'd ever done. Now for me I still count all rare times I even kissed a girl at a party or somethin…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 09:27 PM
4

Now now, be fair, you were using "dearie" to be patronising.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 09:18 PM
3

Yea... but not to the same degree. You aren't saying men and women are generally attracted to the same things are you?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/15 09:11 PM
14

Remember this next time someone shows you some judge giving a lenient sentence to a male rapist. In just about every way "rape culture" as is described by feminists actually describes how we see female on male sexual assault.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 09:01 PM
1

It's not a crime but the public still sees it as a crime so you still get lots of allegations on this basis
/r/MensRights30/08/15 01:52 AM
1

Are you sure? I seem to remember all the UK ones being one direction only, that's why when you walk up to some of them they have a red X on it and you cant go through them because they're for the other direction. Doesn't make a lot of sense to have an exit and entrance on the same gate, especially in rush hour, or you'd end up with lots of people trying to get through the same gate and you'd end up with what happened in the gif
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/15 08:45 PM
45

Could it be that he was technically trying to go through the wrong gate? To me it looks like the exit is to his right and both turn styles are an entrance as no one is exiting that direction apart from him
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/15 05:17 PM
1

I used to think the same but apparently my kinks have evolved. It's hard to describe why it's a turn on. That said, it can be conflicting.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/15 01:32 PM
1

Go back and look again I linked you to a .gov HK site. You yourself have also told me ways in which boys are treated differently, but then turn around and say it's equal
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:49 PM
1

You already described ways in which girls are treated differently to boys and I already linked you to the law itself which is separate from what you're talking about. Yet you still maintain that it treats boys an girls the same. You're either koo koo or you're so defiant about admitting you're wrong you can manage to delusionally say girls and boys are treated the same while telling me how they aren't
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:55 AM
1

If all three consented only the boys committed a crime, that's what the OPs article says. That's what the article I linked you to says, that demonstrating her consent isn't a defence because the law is there to protect girls. They removed the the presumption that boys that young can't consent but not girls. This is why you won't be able to find any mention that she would also be prosecuted if she consented. This is why you won't find any mention in these articles that what she did is a crime. Yo…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:11 AM
1

She didn't commit a crime, apparently you've not learnt anything. For the n'th time, do you have anything other than the behaviour of the police to think the boys forced her?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:53 AM
1

It's really quite impressive that you can manage to say boys and girls are treated equally and then go on to explain how it doesn't treat them equally in the very same breath. The whole basis for your argument rested on idea that the behaviour of the police arresting the boys and treating the girl as a victim points to the boys having likely forced her. Your word was "suspicious". It can't be considered "suspicious" because no matter what her behaviour they would have treated the boys as perpetr…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:56 AM
1

The article I linked you to says that the law applies to boys and that it doesn't matter if the girl consented. The whole point about this change in law applying to boys only is because they want to prosecute boys for sex crimes. To do that they had to remove the assumption that boys can't consent. Girls still legally can't consent which is why her consent is irrelevant. It also says the law was designed to protect girls. The Hong Kong laws do not treat boys and girls the same like you claimed, …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:30 AM
1

Did you miss this bit? It is understood defendants cannot argue that consent was given in their defence because the laws are set out to protect extremely young girls So consent is irrelevant. It is designed to protects girls, not boys. Boys can now give consent whereas girls still can't. They did this so boys can be prosecuted while girls are still protected regardless of their actions LRC report argues that “the ancient presumption that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercour…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:09 AM
1

So all this hinges on you ignoring this.. Are you still going to claim they treat boys and girls equally?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:05 AM
3

So how does Hong Kong deal with the things I mentioned such as fake food and sewage cooking oil? I've seen reports China's fake food has spread to many Asian countries so I'm not sure why Hong Kong wouldn't be affected too?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:02 AM
1

What??? You're saying you have the right to tell me my opinion is wrong? That sure is self centered. You started off telling the OP and then various others you think they are wrong. Now you are telling me I'm wrong, yet you believe I don't "have a right" on a debate/discussion forum to challenge your opinions. If you're so insulted to have your beliefs and opinions challenged may I suggest in future only expressing them to people who already agree with you. You have the right to disagree with my…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:38 PM
1

You're so desperate not to look like a feminist that you've latched onto the idea that there is NO way this could have been against her will, As I told you in the last round of comments I never said she wasn't forced, I said we have no good reason yet to assume she was and quite a good reason to think she probably wasn't. See, whether she consented or not, it's a crime. I know, which is why the boys being arrested and her being examined at the hospital doesn't indicate she didn't consent. Unless…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:23 PM
1

Bias is a strong word. Do you believe I think that all men are guilty at first blush? Because if so, you're so fucking wrong that someone should slap you for it. You're so biased to think that the boys are more likely to be guilty you read this article interpreting it as saying something it didn't. Let's see.. The girl was found at home and was taken to the hospital ... Sorry if "1 hospitalized, 2 arrested" sounds blatantly suspicious to me. What the article actually says is they were arrested a…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:39 PM
1

Stop being a fucking asshole and have a fucking discussion instead of tearing people apart for believing something to be true just because you don't fucking agree with it. You have a right to an opinion but you seem to think you have a right to not have someone argue that your opinion is wrong or illogical or unethical. This is a discussion board, expect your opinions and beliefs to be challenged. You don't see me telling you that you're wrong for believing the girl consented, do you? When did I…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:33 PM
1

Why would I retract something I still believe? I still believe the girl didn't consent (which I am allowed to believe as the police have not confirmed that there was consent, they stated they did not feel there was a consent issue. That is not yet a fact). So I think the girl should go to therapy. You cant tell me you were only going by the information and facts that you had, and now say you were just stating your "beliefs". If you believe they victimised her in the absence of any evidence or fa…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 06:03 PM
1

Stop being blame-oriented. That's interesting because you've been "blaming" me because I'm supposedly asking questions the answers to which you claim are already obvious. I spoke based on what information I had. Great, this gets to the heart of it. What information did you have that suggested the boys victimised/assaulted the girl? If you had this information, then I will agree with you in your initial assessment that the girl should get therapy while the boys should go to juvenile detection. If…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 05:54 PM
1

If YOU saw it as me trying to force others to accept my point of view as gospel, that's YOUR fucking problem buddy. If I assume hypothetically that you aren't backpedaling, it's not other peoples fault you didn't write clear enough. When you literally wrote the girl should get therapy while the boys should go to juvenile detention it's not other peoples fault for thinking you were for treating the boys differently. People can't read your mind. Don't blame other people because they read what you …
/r/MensRights25/08/15 04:38 PM
1

No you didn't. You wrote long essay long posts to people that only had a problem with you because your first post treated boys and girls differently by suggesting the girl should go to therapy while the boys should go to juvenile detention. How else are people meant to have interpreted that? If you had immediately come out and RETRACTED what you originally said you wouldn't have had the reaction you did.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 04:37 PM
1

You never once stated or implied that you were just giving your opinion until now. Eventually after you've been challenged long enough you claim the fact that you put the two thoughts together is OUR fault for reading them as being together. Just like you also say it's everyone elses fault in thinking that you were saying the boys and girls should be treated differently despite saying the opposite in your first posts which is why you were so heavily downvoted and disagreed with. If you didn't me…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 04:09 PM
1

if she was consenting, she should be penalized along with the boys. So why take so long to say this? This is the entire reason people were disagreeing with you, because you were treating the boys and girls differently. Now you blame everyone else because you have to say this.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 04:02 PM
1

If you bombed Japan with a nuke and millions of people died but then you told me there was also a murderer that killed 5 people, that could be described as a "drop in the ocean" of Japans problems. That doesn't imply that a murderer that killed 5 people isn't important
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:32 PM
1

This is what I mean about dodging the point. If the boys did something wrong, then the girl also did something wrong. But you've still decided the girl should only get therapy yet the boys should be punished in a juvenile detection centre. I'm not asking you why the boys should be punished, I'm asking you why ONLY the boys should be punished. Just admit you see sex as something men do to women and therefore the girl as necessarily having to be the victim of the boys actions. What rationale could…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:28 PM
1

You never actually gave a proper answer, you just dodged it and people let you get away with it. Let's try again, this shouldn't need long essay answers.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:23 PM
1

Saying you don't think those under 18 should be having sex is different from saying this view should be legally enforced, which is what you have been saying.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:21 PM
2

Fake eggs, fake grapes, and meat made from cardboard Plastic rice
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:07 PM
3

You've been arguing the law should be a certain way the whole time. You can't claim now you're just giving your opinion. I'm an atheist but when I give my opinion of religion I don't start saying they shouldn't be allowed to meet up and have their services and so on. I'm not a racist but I don't think the KKK shouldn't be legally allowed to meet up and say what they like either.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:27 AM
-4

How does Hong Kong stop the fake food and sewage cooking oil?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:25 AM
0

Where did I say it wasn't important? I'm saying if all the other stuff didn't make me want to leave I doubt this would
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:25 AM
3

You're free to think what you like but don't demand legally enforcing your own personal view of sex on everyone else
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:18 AM
1

If you don't know, why are you already saying they should go to juvenile detention?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:09 AM
2

Why have you decided only the boys go to "juvey" if you admit you don't know the circumstances? Does someone magically become mature enough to have sex when they turn 18? Since most AOC laws are lower than 18, do you see this as legalised child rape?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:08 AM
2

Well for a start how many studies do you know of that looked at the prevalence of men being forced to have sex? When the CDC did this rare thing they intentionally classified it as not rape. How do you know women have things so much worse if all your statistics are leaving out the male figures? If you have two bowls of nuts how can you know if one is fuller if you can only see one bowl?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:06 AM
-10

People poop in the street in china, chemical factories explode, your escalators are death traps, you have fake food and sewage turned into oil and sold as cooking oil. This issue seems like a drop in a ocean
/r/MensRights25/08/15 01:57 AM
1

Also don't forget the "gap" is in favour of women earning more depending on your variables, such as looking at nevermarried childless men and women under 30 in full time work
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:14 PM
2

Just to add to the chorus, this is a great idea.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:12 PM
2

It's so stupid because not only is circumcision also carried out in places just as filthy as they describe as well, but this argument implies they would be ok with FGM if it were done in a clinical environment.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:11 PM
1

Wow that is quite in indictment of circumcision considering the kind of argument that YT commenter made which I've heard many times.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:10 PM
1

Is there a specific video or article you've written, or even interview or presentation you've given, that you think would make a good introduction to all this?
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:01 PM
1

If you treat the "made to penetrate" figures as rape, how does that change the lifetime numbers? I know the problems with using the lifetime figures I am just wondering how much it changes their figures. I know I could figure it out but I'm bad with numbers
/r/MensRights24/08/15 09:59 PM
1

What I mean is no rape statistics are calling that rape, not even the rape statistics created by radical feminists. You can't say "well then I guess doing X isn't rape either!" if they'd say "well you're right, it isn't".
/r/MensRights24/08/15 02:17 PM
1

Koss wouldn't call that rape either
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:16 PM
2

You're partly right, but what they're saying is that the most severe and violent scenario you could think of is always necessarily less "traumatic" than the least severe scenario they would define as rape. So a 12 year old held at gun point and pumped full of drugs would be considered not a victim of rape, whereas a woman who was fingered a few seconds after she said to stop and doesn't even consider herself a victim of anything would be in a survey. They know that to just define rape as "forced…
/r/MensRights24/08/15 09:20 AM
1

Lol, but all the other horrendous acts attributed to god and his chosen people aren't an insult? It's amazing that Bibical believers take the moral high ground so often when they have to justify these things
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:47 AM
7

You'd think so, but this isn't taken out of context
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:45 AM
4

How about a 12 year old boy? Still wouldn't count for Koss
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:44 AM
1

I can't remember the authors but I was shown a paper a while back that said it was essentially just necessarily not as traumatic regardless of the scenario
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:41 AM
2

Well sort of, right? My understanding is within a marriage the assumption is they are his kids but he can challenge it for a certain time period. Obviously it's usually not enough time and all she'd have to do is lie convincingly long enough for that window to pass
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:26 AM
7

Technically she would agree that's not rape
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:24 AM
4

As messed up as Koss is about this... In what way would you say you can rape a woman if you don't penetrate her?
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:11 AM
4

The crazy irony is she said it shouldn't be considered rape for men because it's only "unwanted sex", yet the very definition she had used of rape for her "1 in 4" study in the 80s WAS "unwanted sex" for women.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:07 AM
3

No one does, consciously. But our desire to have sex at all is still due to reproduction
/r/MensRights22/08/15 10:50 PM
1

How have men set things up to be this way? How do you think they should change?
/r/MensRights22/08/15 10:49 PM
37

Not just male soldiers, all men. So even when theres male-only genocides she still considers women to be the primary victims
/r/MensRights20/08/15 02:58 AM
3

I can't tell if you're joking
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:53 AM
1

She also probably wants to feel special about it as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:46 AM
2

I think you can say you're about gender equality as much as you want but I have heard those words quite enough by people who then demonstrate they don't know what equality means or what it would look like. For example.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:45 AM
3

Loooool. Period blood also isn't a blue watery liqued.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:23 AM
2

I don't know to me it sounds far worse to call it chunks, clots I'm ok with for some reason . I've had a lot of bloody noses over the years where you'd stick the tissue up there and put your head back. It's still there flowing out down the back of your throat, but it sort of semi clots together so sometimes if it's really bad you pull the tissue away from your nose and this stringy clotted gloopy blood that reaches all the way back to your throat gets pulled out through your nose.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:16 AM
1

Lol wat. This is a joke right?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 01:13 AM
5

Equality, they keep using that word
/r/MensRights17/08/15 01:04 AM
1

Actually quite a lot of thought, but I'm not going to use myself as an example. I know the point you're making but it's not the same as the one I'm making. Men don't spend as much time thinking about outfits, and there's usually no signifcant hair style choices and no makeup. I get that, that's not what I'm taking about. Do you deny that it's a A LOT easier to put on makeup than it is to achieve the muscular toned physique as shown in that picture?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/15 11:37 AM
1

I was talking about the examples given in the pictures which you seemed to be disputing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/15 09:55 AM
6

Both men and women that are fawned over from a young age for their physical attractiveness often don't develop an interesting personality because there's less pressure to do so. This tends to happen more with women because with men they still have to do more work than attractive women do to get attention. The men usually still need to DO something whereas the girl can just bring herself.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/15 02:28 AM
8

Uh you seem to be missing the point that to get that male figure takes a ridiculous amount of work. Putting on makeup is nothing compared to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/15 02:19 AM
1

I'm not asking you to verify every woman's account. The strawman is acting like I'm saying harrassment doesn't happen, or that women never get cat called or hit on in public. I didn't say that and have said the opposite many times. All you've done is defend the idea that all reports all true and that if you just feel harrased it means you were. Telling people their fear and paranoias are real is not healthy, and to deny that there are people that over report such things for this reason is doing …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 10:13 PM
1

I have and still do in some respects have social phobia. There is no leap whatsoever in the idea that you can develop paranoia that you are being sexually harrassed or that all behaviour by men toward you is intentional and sexual. For me as a man I have a similar opposite paranoia, that women look at me and think negatively about me and occasionally laugh behind my back. If I were female this is the kind of thing you'd be telling me was actually happening, it's not healthy. I also see you won't…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 08:29 PM
1

I have no idea. I suggest you look it up then. It is somewhat like agoraphobia. The point is what I'm talking about is symptomatic of how social phobics think when they interact with others especially strangers in public. What reason do we have to think that this wouldn't also extend to thinking people were sexually harassing you? but I'm not going to agree that street harassment, which is something I, personally, see every day, is some sort of delusion or phobia-induced belief for the women who…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 07:23 PM
1

You deny social phobia exists?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 02:09 PM
2

Why will you not accept the fact that some women are paranoid and over report for the same reason we see those with social phobia report that when they go out people are watching them and talking about them negatively etc? And you're helping to foster this pathology by saying yes this really is happening to them and accepting whatever wild claims they make even if they have video footage they think shows something that it doesn't. And you're ok with this so long as they "feel" harrassed, even if…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 02:31 AM
2

I didn't say those instances don't matter. I said look at the mentality that defines everything that happens to her as harrassment. Every glance is directed to her, every inflection is someone hitting on her, every movement around her is deliberate. You haven't paid attention at all. Did you see the video of the man that went through NYC for 3 hours? What do you think happened to him? Someone with social anxiety could well genuinely be seeing people looking at them, but that doesn't mean that mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 02:13 AM
3

Uh huh. They intentionally chose that street in that part of town, one which also just happens to have a lot of street touts on there. Why did they include things that were not harrassment and things that probably weren't even cat calls? Why is lying ok to make people emotionally invested? Isn't the truth good enough? Did you also see that other video of a man that walked around for 3 hours in NYC, did you guess what happens to him too?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 02:07 AM
3

I can define harassment when we can see it on the video and the video is being used as proof of that harassment. And if you're going to claim harassment is when someone feels harassed then we can end the discussion there as I am not agreeing to the premise that feelings are facts. You're entitled to feel however you like, but you don't get to claim someone is a bad person just because you feel bad. I'm not giving you one instance. I'm giving you an example of a popular viral video, and how most …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 01:57 AM
3

It is not a black and white issue. Look at the Hollaback video, most of that wasn't harassment and definitely not the typical experience of an average woman on an average street like it was made out to be. How many called it out as that? The equivalent of "lies for Jesus" isn't ok. Now a woman might get harrased in her life a few times but that's very different to what was presented in that video, but if we saw the actual average experience it wouldn't have had the same impact. It's the same rea…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 01:51 AM
8

Well look at the Hollaback video. Most of that wasn't harraasment and absolutely not your average street and experience, but how many women called it out? We don't benefit from the idea that lies and hyperbole are ok so long as it's kind of sort of true in some way.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 01:47 AM
3

Some women, not all women. And I never said those women got no harassment at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 01:16 AM
3

You still don't understand... I am not saying it doesn't happen. Are you being intentionally stupid?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 01:09 AM
8

It is not a black and white question of whether harassment happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 12:43 AM
5

No a lack of bias would recognise the possibility of the hypersensitive and overreporting.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 12:42 AM
9

It's only the most obvious if you have bias. There is also a perfectly valid alternative. It can also be both at the same time. Are you willing to concede that some women are far more paranoid to seeing harassment everywhere?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 11:47 PM
8

I'm not sure you read my post.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 11:47 PM
1

Maybe I'm unclear on what TBP is but isn't it just basically a "I think TRP are wrong about relationships, unethical, and it doesn't work" response, rather than a mere sort of opposite philosophy? TRPs defintion of happiness, if there is one, is as far as I can tell just based on assuming you are a man that desires X,Y,Z and therefore should act like [this] in order to most likely achieve X,Y,Z. I think they would agree some men don't want the same things they want. However what they would say i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 09:25 PM
15

I meant more people from the same culture in the same areas. I think it's because some women are either naturally paranoid or have become paranoid due to social influences that tell her men are going to harass her constantly. So that to some women every glance, inflection and movement are going to be interpreted as intentionally done for her, and usually with some insidious intention. So a guy didn't just accidently bump into her, he did it on purpose to try and touch her. A guy didn't just glan…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 09:17 PM
2

Well you're half right. It is concerned with being happy. But it claims to tell you what behaviours will allow you the most chances of being happy (assuming you want certain outcomes) by having an accurate understanding of human relationships/society which rightly or wrongly they believe they have. So as I say on the one hand TRP could be valid and invalid at the same exact time depending on what question you're asking/what your perspective is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:48 PM
1

Wow I don't give women oral sex because I get nothing out of it and think its gross. I actually get off on doing it. I don't want a girl to do something just because she thinks I want it but thinks its gross, nothing will turn me off faster than if I knew that Here's some friendly advice. Never ever tell a guy that you think giving bjs are disgusting or his sexuality is "gross"
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:38 PM
2

Being happy doesn't mean you have a valid (ie. "accurate") understanding of the world, it just means you're happy. The universe doesn't care about the feel.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:28 PM
5

I'm not sure that's agreeing with feminists, unless you're going to end with some negative conclusion about men somehow, or at least conclude women are victims. If you say women are more sensitive than men they'll jump down your throats, but if you dress it up as saying men are taught they need a stiff upper lip while women are left to feel bad about themselves and that leads to them being less assertive and getting paid less due to that, then they will totally agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:25 PM
6

No one is saying that here.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:21 PM
17

Why do some women claim they get cat called all the time everywhere they go relentlessly and others say they don't? Could it possibly be some of them are particularly sensitive? That maybe it's not that some women get harrassed less than others, but that some women just believe they are being harrassed more than they actually are?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:20 PM
2

There are many different ways to lead a happy and fulfilled life, and there should be no debate about that, because everyone can do as he pleases. Well sure in that sense each is just as valid, but I don't think anyone here really cares about such a vague understanding of the word.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 07:56 PM
2

From what I've seen it's pretty nice generally speaking, but I am more of a casual reader and I've participated in WAY more "nasty" exchanges :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 07:51 PM
2

Depends what you mean by "valid", doesn't it? There's a better and worse way if you're hoping for a certain outcome. Consequently if most men want women to think a certain way about them you can certainly argue one way is more valid than another, or even that one way is counter productive to what you want to achieve.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 05:51 PM
3

It seems to me that if PPD seems a bit one sided it's only because there are a lack of "BP" showing up.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 05:50 PM
1

Actually I would add to your last point somewhat. To use your analogy of ice cream, if ice cream is scarce i will desire it more than if it's abundant. This is the same reason why if you realise there aren't any toilet faculties anywhere near you can suddenly become aware of "how much you need to pee". Or if you know there is no access to water you start to really stress about your thirst compared to knowing you could go get a drink at any time. So if there is an abundance of ice cream (or if ic…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/15 09:38 PM
2

Loneliness is a feeling that doesn't necessarily match reality. It's why poor people can "feel" rich and rich people can "feel" poor. Much of this is down to the hierarchy of needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/15 04:59 PM
3

They assume this because without religion shaming or scaring them (with threats of hell or disease or something), the probability is the person is going to desire sex and therefore they wouldn't have a reason not to have it if they can. If you assume most relationships early on won't last then even without intentionally trying to they can end up sleeping with a lot of people in a relatively short period of time if there's no barrier. A barrier such as they physically can't, like they're stuck in…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/15 04:45 PM
3

Actually it isn't clear cut that rape is legally considered sex without consent. The FBI only changed its definition in 2012 to allow men to be rape victims. The CDC still refuse to define forcing a man to penetrate a woman/man as rape, citing the new FBI definition which they interpret as not including that. The only reason state law can be interpreted as including envelopment in their definitions of rape is due to it being vague enough. A lot of countries only define rape as something only a m…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:17 PM
2

Well yea but that's not the same thing saying it's rape. They didn't say "female teacher rapes school boy" or something.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:08 PM
3

To them, guilt is a certainty.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:45 PM
10

It shows women are more likey to be violently aggressive. When this is pointed out people will say that this violence doesn't count unless serious injuries are sustained and the goal posts for the severity of these will move back until they are sure women dominate as victims. When not comparing male and female violence then ANY aggression and abuse or violence is considered to be too much. Where arguing with your wife can be called abuse and violence, watching porn, raising your voice, saying yo…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 04:59 PM
2

I wonder if they are going to bother to first get the law changed so it's even possible for a woman to be a rapist
/r/MensRights27/07/15 04:19 PM
3

It's not all about money, it really isn't. I think only seeing the money is seeing things backwards. The reason these organisations exist and therefore need to maintain these lies is because of the ideology in the first place. They not only really believe this stuff, they also have a vested interest in keeping it going or they lose everything, and not just monetarily speaking. It's a snake feeding itself, itself.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 04:18 PM
1

As others have said this is old news. But I think it isn't repeated enough that their own report told them the wage gap doesn't exist due to discrimination but Obama lies anyway and gets rapturous applause when he says women are literally paid only 77% for every dollar a man makes. What this report doesn't say is single childless women under 30 working full time earn more than men do in the same demographic. But of course when that's reported we are told that's the way things are meant to be but…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 03:53 PM
2

Very old drama. What's great is Sharon "apologised" in the next episode... while choking back laughter.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 03:51 PM
1

Except those on AMR are probably mostly male.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 12:42 PM
3

What does this refer to?
/r/MensRights05/07/15 02:54 PM
1

Well it is perfectly valid to say there are too many of us, it just depends on your focus/context.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 05:11 PM
1

Why would it be better to have more people? Economically we need more and more people but economics and nature are two different things.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 04:59 PM
3

I'm sorry but I don't buy the pregnancy thing these days. There is plenty of contraception a woman can take that makes pregnancy a much less risky or practically zero risk proposition for her. A man must either trust her or trust a condom, and if she does get pregnant he has to cross his fingers and hope she does what he wants her to do because he has zero say in the matter. Obviously physically speaking it's more risky for a woman and that may well mean genetically women are predisposed to bein…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/06/15 04:48 PM
62

They've internalised that a man "can't hit women", even in self defense of another woman. Whoopie Goldberg said it best, which interestingly gets applause which I'm pretty sure wouldn't happen if a man had said that.. Men usually know you don't provoke a fight unless you are prepared to fight or prepared to risk a fight. We also expect that if a smaller weaker man starts a fight with a stronger man it's still his responsibility. If a bigger boy is being bullied by a smaller boy in school and he …
/r/PussyPassDenied28/06/15 01:00 AM
0

What do you mean? This is very surprising for them for exactly this reason
/r/MensRights27/06/15 02:07 AM
9

What the hell is up with this? Have I entered some alternative dimension where this is acceptable to say on FTB?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:17 PM
11

And then she's going to win feminist awards and film a boring porno with 4 different angles then tell you that you're a rapist for watching
/r/MensRights05/06/15 06:17 PM
3

Sure but the claim from the pro-circumcision FGM hypocrites is that FGM is different because of the reasoning behind it.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 04:30 PM
5

From what I read Jewish circumcision is supposed to be painful and pain relief is not supposed to be used for that reason
/r/MensRights05/06/15 01:18 PM
3

But they do say you don't have to be circumcised if 2 other boys in your family died from circumcision before you, from a blood related condition. How sweet of them
/r/MensRights05/06/15 01:16 PM
1

I strongly doubt the quality of a study that could come to the opposite conclusion that contradicts all the observable evidence
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 10:22 PM
1

They might not value themselves that high, but they may have high tastes. The problem you're talking about comes when someone is turning down women while complaining that no one wants them. You typically find this to be far more prevelant with women than men, where despite the evidence to the contrary they'll still claim they can't find anyone and get upset if you say they're being picky. If an above average man got as much attention as a below average woman gets he'd think he was a massive stud…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 09:28 PM
2

My mother is white South African and left in the 80s but we've been over there quite a number of times. Heh @ African American :p The people who say black people can't be racist to white people say racism/sexism is "power + privilege". So white men have the most "power and privilege" and therefore you can never be racist or sexist to them no matter what. They know good and well there are hateful non-whites and hateful women. They define racism and sexism because they want to to able to get away …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 05:04 PM
1

They may be "attracted" to the top 20% of women but it's clear they aren't ONLY attracted to the top 20% of women. That goes for women being attracted to men as well, but there is a difference. We can see all kinds of woman, (body type, age, even facially unattractive women) be fawned over in various male communities on the internet. So while the women who post on the Gone Wild sub may be the top 20%-30% of women there's plenty of other subs and groups that are all about the others. It's easy to…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 02:08 PM
1

But how often do you find an ugly guy with a hot girl where the guy didn't have other characteristics, like being very successful/having lots of status? Ive seen lots of ugly guys with hot women, but the men aren't working in a deadend job in Starbucks earning minimum wage
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 02:07 PM
1

I know how you feel. Just so you know she could just be a bad one, or one having a bad day.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 02:02 PM
2

In South Africa the black people are very advantaged now. It a great example I give when SJWers claim you can't be racist to white people or men, because applying their logic to a place like South Africa would mean white people can't be said to be racist to black people
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 01:58 PM
2

Of all the "documented" cases of "manspreading" in how many cases was there evidence that the man in question wouldn't have changed his position if he needs to? (Ie. Pregnant lady or very old person needing to sit down) There's cases where women are seen using seats for their bags and you could make the same judgement against them for the same reason. To that I make the same point. Also, what "microagressions" are you refering to? According to what I've read/heard it seems to be whatever the wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/15 01:42 PM
4

However it shouldn't be illegal. It would certainly be laughed out of court if we reversed the genders.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:17 PM
2

It's just traditional attitudes on steriods, the only difference is in traditionalism it places limits on women's freedoms. That's what causes all the differences.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:15 PM
1

Like many people they can seem completely rational until you question that one thing they irrationally believe
/r/MensRights31/05/15 05:38 PM
9

I dont know. I think she may have genuinely convinced herself
/r/MensRights25/05/15 02:28 AM
1

Yea but they find it a lot easier to just demand we always believe the accuser and claim false accusations are so rare it's not worth thinking about
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:25 PM
5

Got to love the post from the one saying MRA's don't care about this story.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:22 PM
1

I didn't say she touched 4 year olds, she did however do these things to her younger sister when she was at least as old as 17. What she described isn't normal behaviour.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 10:48 AM
3

Thing is you'd think only white people ever did anything terrible. Really the only difference is white people just happened to get lucky with populating the world faster than other another race did.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 12:18 AM
2

I believe the politically correct term is not "Jew" it's "Reptilian Shapeshifting Overlords"
/r/MensRights23/05/15 12:16 AM
7

Lol "general kid stuff"... you do when you're 17? Uh no sorry not normal. She said she escalated her actions as a "sexual predator" as time went on, ie. They got worse. The latest age she describes is her still being 17
/r/MensRights23/05/15 12:12 AM
19

I watched an interview with the replacement guy on The DS, and my mothers side is South African so I am much more likely to get the joke, but he spent the entire thing making it all about his race and his whole identity his blackness. I'm bored of that routein.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 12:10 AM
91

And Anita Sarkessian
/r/MensRights23/05/15 12:08 AM
6

Well sorry I don't agree, it's pretty clear she doesn't believe she is safer with Brienne. The Boltons murdered her mother and brother, and heavily tortured her step brother. Of course she'd be scared.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:16 PM
3

Coercion. If she didn't she would've been killed, or they would've done it anyway. Same if she had married Joffrey.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:03 PM
1

If it was a man with the same body type they would never say he shouldn't have hit him back. That's why I never understand the "she's smaller" logic, if a smaller and even technically weaker man starts assaulting a bigger stronger guy, we'd all say he was asking to get hit.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:02 PM
1

Didn't he plead guilty to hitting her though? I mean, he did hit her, right?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:01 PM
3

She needs his thumbs to feed herself, why are so you selfish?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:00 PM
4

In a way it was rape, for sure. But these people just don't care about the rape, torture and genital mutilation of a man in the same show. You could have exactly the same and worse happen to men and they still wouldn't be happy.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:56 PM
5

You don't need to believe it, it happened, more than once.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:54 PM
6

It's always the same when I've talked to SJW'ers about Game of Thrones.. It's only bad if it happens to women, even if what happens to men is much worse. They are so blinkered they don't even notice it when they watch it.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:53 PM
20

Taking creepshots of women in public: Worst type of misogyny and sexual objectification. Tubecrush? a-okay Male sexuality is harmful and dangerous, slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails. Female sexuality is pure and innocent, sugar and spice and all things nice. Don't you know that? What do you mean that sounds like traditionalism? No it isn't, I'm a feminist and I'm obviously against that so it can't be!
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:48 PM
5

Oh it's the same old story. Women can be as promisioucs and a sexual as they want, but if men like it, or if it's used to sell something, the women are being uniquely objectified and dehumanized. Apparently they don't see the logic that this means the women are objectifying and dehumanizing themselves as they go on their "Slut Walk" protests.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:46 PM
1

Is rape really something you get the death penalty for? I don't pretend to be that well read up on US laws, but it was my understanding that you still had to kill someone.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:44 PM
1

I'll clarify, I mean the tropes they say are against women.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:25 PM
5

denying certain forms of rape as rape, Like female on male rape, the form that the 'rape culture' people deny. denying rape statistics You have it backwards, they are denying statistics, even their own. RAINN, which denies the same statistics, says there is no rape culture. They are too extreme even for RAINN. ... not all (or even most) men are potential rapists Not even close, studies actually show a very tiny % of men are rapists and they know full well that it's wrong, that's what they get of…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:00 AM
1

Yea I know, but there's no reason to think she would have. So to have it called "attempted rape" means they either thought it was likely to some degree, or that they were calling what she did rape somehow.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 09:05 PM
8

What I find funny about this is not just that this all started because a non-MRA suggested his audience boycott the film, but the reactions were like "oh manbabies think women in a film mean its a feminist film har har har", even though Eve Ensler was brought to the set by the director to talk to the cast then told everyone it was a feminist movie pushing a feminist message, and that one day they won't have to be sneaky about it. From reviews I've seen it's just another action movie. I'm not sur…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:43 PM
0

You're right it should be comparing like for like.That said, does it seem plausible to you that a man would have got the same sentence? And if he had, does it seem plausible that there wouldn't be a huge outcry?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:37 PM
1

So why "attempted"?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:35 PM
2

I'm amazed she was charged with rape at all, even if it was only "attempted". Interestingly in a rape study, such as the CDC' IPVS, this wouldn't be considered rape.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:35 PM
1

Apparently she isn't white, but you can't tell her this makes her an honorary white person in the privilage club or she'll combust
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:31 PM
2

You're gay because you hate women, you love men so much you want to have sex with them!
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:29 PM
34

This is a girl that thinks you can't be sexist to men or racist to white people. She also lives in a half a million £ property in London, but talks about her lack of privilege. She says she's an ethnic minority, but she also looks white. She'll talk about how as a woman she will earn less than men, but she chose to stay in education through most of her 20s doing gender studies.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:25 PM
3

How is Fury Road not another damsel in distress movie (which Sarkeesian would say makes it not a feminist movie). How is it feminist? Because they said it was. That's why Anita Sarkessian's good female character was just an androgynous husk and her hypothetical game proposal broke most of her own rules she just got done telling us were sexist tropes against women. I haven't seen MM yet and I can already see plenty of "misogynist tropes" they could get mad about if they wanted to.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 05:50 PM
1

He may well be sexist, but what in the comment is sexist? And when you were explaining why it was sexist, why did you say he was saying the opposite of what he did?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/15 07:09 PM
1

He doesn't literally mean they say "hurr durr". You say you know that, but then immediately act like he is being literal. And if you understand his point, why did you represent it as the opposite of what was written? Is it just the tone?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/15 08:55 PM
1

I get that you feel it is, but I'm not sure exactly what part you have a problem with. Maybe the part about how posting naked pics should be degrading? That's something a lot of feminists say as well (that it's objectification and necessarily dehumanizing). What was written is against attention seeking behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/15 02:57 PM
1

lol I wonder what your definition of "good looking" is
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/15 12:56 PM
1

Except that you seem to have interpreted the opposite of what was written
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/15 07:01 AM
1

Actually what was written seems to be the compete opposite of what you just wrote. Are you sure you are reading the same thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/15 04:56 PM
3

It's more like hearing, "I'm attracted to men that are sweet, sensitive and caring with a good head on his shoulders, and is faithful...." "... buuuuuuut.... most of my previous boyfriends/hookups were coincidently "dickheads". There is no connection though, and it definitely doesn't mean there may be other attributes I also find attractive I'm not mentioning..." I tend to raise an eyebrow in skepticism now rather than taking it on faith like I used to when I was younger. Men will usually be mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/15 01:43 PM
1

Don't you mean clickbait?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/15 01:26 PM
1

It definitely wasn't in my grandparents house that's for sure. My grandmother worked in a government office balencing the accounts. She was always telling us proudly about her job and how good she was at it. At home however she didn't get involved at all, when my grandfather died she just didn't have any idea what was going on with her money and didn't understand anything. It always felt like she stubbornly refused to. To me it was always so irritating since she obviously could do it but chose n…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/15 01:20 PM
2

Well that would be new then, last I checked they were just traditionalists on steroids. With the behaviors being suggested (like cooking, cleaning and providing lots of sex) just being incentives rather than because they wanted to actually do it. Presuming that is still the case I find it a bit sad that the best "new female role" they could think of is just exactly the same as the old one. The only difference is they want to make it a little more of a sweeter deal for men so they actually stick …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/15 12:43 PM
6

Wat? How was I said inaccurate? They want a traditionalist man for a traditionalist role and they talk about how to reward him for being like that, much of which involves sex. When i checked it out before and read a lot of what they were saying that is how it was, unless it has changed dramatically.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 10:33 PM
4

hahaha fully explains it then. What she doesn't like is how I accurately described what RPW think and believe, because it sounds negative to her and that can't be right, therefore I must not understand it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 09:46 PM
3

I have.. maybe you havent...
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 08:49 PM
4

I don't post to TRP, do they actually have a rule that says women can't post? I can imagine they might not want women coming in and arguing with them, but that's not the same thing. I'm not too sure what use a woman could have in TRP as a sub reddit anyway. At least you see RPW isn't the same thing as TRP though, I was actually surprised how nuts so much of what they say is.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 07:20 PM
2

It isn't segregation because its really completely different from TRP. Seriously. You only have to read the two with comprehension to see that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 07:03 PM
1

RPW are full on traditionalist. They want the traditional male role of protector and provider. They can see men have far less incentive to be this way these days so they talk about how to create that incentive. While I am anti-traditionalist and a lot of what I've seen them say is insane, in a way I can give them some credit because at least they know what they want and they at least aren't demanding men do things for them without giving them something in return. I still find it inherently explo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/15 07:00 PM
1

You can't be bothered to read what I wrote but you will write me a short essay about you know I'm changing the topic of the conversation. Yah ok. I have not changed the topic, you have changed the topic. I have always been talking about the same thing, but though I tried it's been futile trying to get you to remember why we were talking about any of this at all to begin with.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 12:35 PM
1

No. The argument was about physically incapability... That's exactly what it was. CAPCITY. Ugh, I remember the argument, I was there. Remember when I said this? So I originally said and have always been saying that if you don't foster intelligence you lose it and now you've just said "no" as if I had suddenly changed the subject about physically superior/inferior brains. Don't blame me because you decided to go off on your own bashing up a strawman. and your tried to change the topic repeatedly.…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 01:03 AM
1

Ok. A.) you are using a definition of intelligence that is clearly warped beyond all recognition. Not sure how, since you defined intelligence in a way that you can say cavemen are more intelligent than people today. I don't see how there can be a defensible meaningful definition of intelligence that enables us to do that. B.) a belief that man's intellectual capacity has somehow rapidly increased to it's zenith over the last 2,000 years is absolutely laughable, and honestly is insulting mine. T…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 10:18 PM
1

After this post you didn't explain yourself. The snarkyness was in not just telling me what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 09:51 PM
1

Not sure why you couldn't have just said you don't want to talk about it rather than being snarky about it
/r/MensRights02/05/15 05:24 PM
1

The last 2 posts from you have been vague, is this the end of the conversation?
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:33 PM
1

If you're hinging this on the word average I don't really care about comparing the dumbest man today with the smartest caveman
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:19 AM
1

A 'meaningful' definition, or any definition that I know of, of intelligence does not include a hypothesis that people 'in the UK' are less intelligent... Which was never the thesis anyway. You did say that... "hunter gatherer man was likely more intelligent on average than modern man." Once again I don't see a meaningful definition of intelligence where in the context of our conversation about the sophistication of the people who wrote the Bible gives us any reason to think all the grotesque la…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 10:03 PM
0

I'm still not sure where in that you have given me a meaningfull definition of intelligence that says, for example, the average person living in the UK today, is --less--intelligent than hunter gatherers many thousands of years ago.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 12:07 AM
0

Show me. Because I can find endless legal sources that talk about rape and consent. Also, defend this idea. Why should BDSM and bondage be rape?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 08:42 PM
1

Every legal definition and use of the word has consent as a critical component. Yes I think you are cherry picking. Otherwise all those porn videos which show any amount of "force" are by definition guilty of rape.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 05:33 PM
1

Why do you think incapacitation is relevant, but not consent? Could it be that it is considered wrong to have sex with someone who is unconscious because they "could not consent" rather than just because they were just in itself? Could you consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted the law? Because you sure are cherry picking it.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:38 AM
0

Well I just googled the word and the first thing I see is "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways". I don't see a --meaningful-- definition of intelligence where hunter gather tribes grunting their communications, believing they have to kill things or their gods will bring them plagues and famine and believing the world is really the back of a giant turtle shell, to be "more intelligent" than secular western society today. Ok so they could survive outside without any modern technol…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:13 AM
1

Just to get this straight. You believe drunk sex is always rape, not because lack of consent because you think non-consent isn't rape, but purely due to the fact that the other person is "incapacitated". So ultimately you agree with those feminists, correct?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:08 AM
1

I believe if intelligence isn't fostered you can still end up stupid, so yes I do think it is impossible for hunter gathers to be more intelligent than us.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:06 AM
1

Are ISIS less intelligent? I would say you have to be to believe what they believe and justify what they are able to justify. I guess it depends on what you define as intelligent. I do distinctly remember using the word sophisticated and deep though, refering to the idea that every story in there we think is a crazy and (and usually abominable) myth is actually some deep analogy we just need to interprete in the right way. The people that voice this idea never seem to want to consider the possib…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 01:07 AM
1

I don't know about you but I'm not comparing witch trials hundreds of years ago and today's religious wackos like ISIS which are probably quite close to the war tribe in the Bible. I'm comparing where I live in the UK, and it's odd you can't see the difference between our society and a people even more backward than ISIS. We've never been more better off and more rational, as much as there are irrational people it still doesn't change this.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:56 AM
0

I'm not sure why you have to keep straining to compare this with something else. You said that non-consensual sex should not be a crime. Therefore in a bdsm scenario where you are accused of rape how does consent factor in? You have simultaneously argued that proving they consented both is and is not an defense. On the one hand it isn't a defense because if you proved they didn't consent you've said consent doesn't matter because non-consensual sex isn't rape. On the other you said consent is a …
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:48 AM
0

In murder someone is still dead you aren't comparing like for like. Once again, if consent is irrelevant then it is rape regardless if you can prove absolutely that they consented
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:16 AM
0

If consent has nothing to do with whether something is rape or not then how would having proof someone consented at the time help your defense? They would say the consent was irrelevant, you had sex with them when they were tied up and therefore you are guilty of rape and them consenting can't be a defense. According to your definition of rape consent should be completely irrelevant. I like how you still haven't shown this is how the word is legally used.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:03 PM
1

You're talking about people that thought if you killed animals and "sprinkled" the bold around an alter it was the only way to be forgiven for "sin". A people that wiped out entire civilisations without mercy including children. That would sometimes kill all the little boys but take little virgin girls as slaves "for themselves". A people that believed in witches, demons, talking animals and food falling from the sky. We could go on and on, at almost every level we are more intellectually capabl…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:56 PM
1

I'm just saying the idea that what they wrote was some deep meaningful metaphor we just need to interpret correctly gives them far more credit than they deserve
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:42 PM
0

If consent doesn't define what is and what isnt rape then it can't be used as a defense because consent would be irrelevant. If tying someone up makes it rape it doesn't matter if you prove consent (such as with a video or with an admission)
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:39 PM
1

Once again no legal evidence showing that is how the legal system defines rape. Once again you said consent is the deciding factor, not the tying up.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:33 PM
1

You don't have to believe the stories literally happened, but calling it a metaphor is implying the writers orginally intended it to be only metaphorical. I do think there are some metaphorical aspects some Literalists choose to take literally that weren't intended even at the time, but to suggest it was intended to be a metaphor just shows a poor grasp of history and to me shows a desire to believe these people were far more sophisticated than they actually were.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:57 PM
1

So no legal evidence yet? You said consent would be a defense in this case, which in fact means the difference between this being rape and not rape would be "consent". You've already said non-consensual sex should not be considered rape, yet here you are saying consent is the deciding factor. Seems rather a lot like you broke your own argument.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:45 PM
1

So all BDSM and bondage is rape no matter what. I see. Any legal evidence forthcoming? Also, you're claiming it "should" be this way. Care to defend this idea? What if someone likes rough sex, and the tearing was from that? Is that rape too, even if the person fully accepts they wanted it?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 03:45 PM
0

Prove it. What you're saying is that if you tie up and gag someone, then have sex with them, no matter how much they don't want you to or want you to stop, that isn't rape because he or she was still conscious. It also means if some guy forces his dick in your ass, according to you it wasn't really "force" because according to your definition you weren't "physically incapacitated". Your definitions are absurd. Oh and you aren't just saying "legally" you're also saying this is how it should be.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 03:12 PM
1

What does, God need, with a Star Ship?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:28 PM
1

If they have to they could blur their faces, there's no way I'd agree to remove them
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:09 AM
12

Unless those 16 year olds commit some terrible crime and then they want to burn them at the stake.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:06 AM
0

If you're physically restrained you're physically helpless. I'd rather not have to get graphic with you because you can't imagine it. Glad to know you agree with my assessment that bondage and bdsm is rape according to your logic
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:03 AM
2

/r/RedPill isn't MGTOW
/r/MensRights29/04/15 01:52 AM
1

So what's the difference between someone tied up and raped and tied up and not raped? According to everyone else, consent.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:46 PM
1

This is ridiculously stupid and thats why you're being downvoted. Your definition of rape means in a BDSM or bondage scenario if someone is restrained (ie. "physically helpless"), no matter how much they demand they want you to have sex with them, it's rape.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 06:00 PM
3

The golden rule is basically "treat others as you would like to be treated". You'll find many Christians think this "came from the Bible" because it is in the Bible, but seem unaware it is common in plenty of other cultures independent of the Bible. If you're saying the concept you're talking about "literally" came form the Bible, you're going to have to do better than just finding some story that sounds similar. although obviously it's 100% metaphor It's not true that the people who wrote the B…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 05:53 PM
3

Is this the same way Christians think the "golden rule" also stems from the bible?
/r/MensRights28/04/15 03:56 PM
0

I think his point is one is socially acceptable. I actually don't think they make a great comparison
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/15 03:01 AM
49

Gotta love how they are all laughing until he knocks her out, then act shocked and go to jump on him afterwards. If men are so dangerous I don't understand why women like these like to risk getting assaulted. If I'm out at night and see some dodgy people I make sure not to piss them off let alone try and fight them
/r/PussyPassDenied23/04/15 10:16 PM
3

The mistake is in treating all "attempts" as legitimate attempted suicides when we don't know what ratio are 'cries for help'. I remember debating someone twice (I think it was the same person actually) that argued that a "parasuicide" should be included in attempted suicide statistics, of women which women are the vast majority, in order to increase the dispairty between men and women even further. It's pretty crazy because we call it parasuicide when we have already decided it wasn't a genuine…
/r/MensRights20/04/15 01:04 AM
3

When I read it I assumed he meant in some animal species
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/15 12:14 PM
3

Lol to the OP. It really isnt surprising! You should come to expect that kind of attitude in taking about these things
/r/MensRights14/04/15 09:57 PM
1

A woman can have as much sex as they want, unless a feminist doesn't agree with the number of partners. Some of them... With the rest it more seems to depend more on happy the woman feels afterwards, and if it's negative then it's the men's fault. So this girl regretted it, therefore the men should have stopped her from 'allowing' men to "use" and 'degrade' her because obviously she must have low self esteem to have wanted to do that, and that they should know this, and that they should overrule…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:51 PM
4

Firstly, that's not what white knighting means... Secondly, the only defense of the men here was in response to the idea that they "used" her and that it was their responsibility to tell her that they know better and should have stopped her from doing what she wanted
/r/MensRights13/04/15 08:02 PM
6

lol how do you interpret that as "white knighting"? You can say they "used" her just as you could say she "used" them. The difference is if one of those guys regretted it and asked for advice they'd get told it was all their responsibility (and probably disgusting people), rather than it being suggested that it was someone's elses fault they regret their decision.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 07:08 PM
1

Wrong, it's not just America :P
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:51 PM
6

That is a little sexist. Still, posting this here is sort of overkill. It is more /r/mensrants but it really depends on what your understanding of what this sub should allow. I still think it is relevant to talk about regarding social attitudes. It's not exactly a fringe opinion.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:49 PM
8

"YOU" Here she is addressing the girl, hence "blaming" the girl as well. When two (or more) people have sex, it is both their "fault", and "Colleen" is not denying this. What she is saying is that the men "used" her, as if the only reason she allowed the men to damage her this way is because she has low self esteem, not because she wanted to or enjoyed it. This isn't overtly feminist since it is quite "slut shamey". This is more traditionalist, saying she shouldn't be promiscuous. The overlap be…
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:46 PM
10

It is also a slap in the face to all the female rape victims that feel shame because their body made their vagina get wet, or even orgasm.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:42 PM
1

talking about how the "filthy pig men" should've known better. Yea, they think it is perfectly ok to "slut shame" men. How dare you call a woman a filthy slut! Men are free to have as much sex as they want, women have the same right! PS: those men are filthy pigs!
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:41 PM
4

Actually people are. It's just not in this girl's letter, and the woman is replying to the girl, not all the people at the party. "Coleen" does act like the men should have made the decisions for her, and decided that she shouldn't be able to decide to do that. Just picture a few guys trying to stop her. Their idea is men should respect a womens decision, but then protect her from her own decisions if he thinks he knows better.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:36 PM
2

Your letter makes me really sad. I’m sad because you think so little of yourself that you’ve allowed these men to use you. ... It also makes me angry that not one guy at the party tried to put a stop to it and considered how you were going to feel the next day. Very traditionalist mindset... The men were meant to not respect her choices and make the decisions for her.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:28 PM
1

... What in all holy crap are you arguing now?? :DDDDD This is such a massive train wreck! Why are you now trying to convince me having sex with someone who is unconscious is rape? I already know it is and why. You were trying to tell me that because the FBI's definition only changed 2 years ago that prior to that, legally speaking, having sex with unconscious women wasn't considered rape. Someone who is unconscious is incapacitated. Stop losing your mind, get help. ahahahah
/r/MensRights10/04/15 09:01 PM
1

We are taking about unconscious. Really? Wow. You're demented. :PPP
/r/MensRights10/04/15 09:00 PM
1

I didnt say unconscious. You said incapacitated. An unconscious person is by definition incapacitated. You also talked about how the word "forsible" was important, and having sex with someone who is unconscious is the least forceful you could make it. So therefore prior to 2 years ago you think this wasn't considered legally rape.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:59 PM
1

But not the law right? The law didn't consider having sex with unconscious people rape prior to January 2013?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:56 PM
1

Uhhhh ...so? That would also include unconscious women. You can't get less "forcible" than having sex with someone that is unconscious.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:55 PM
1

You were unaware of it? What year did you think the law changed? It seems to me you just admitted you forgot the definition you were talking about changed only 2 years ago. Your whole premise was that "date rape" was not considered rape because you say it was not rape to have sex with women who were unconscious. According to the hole you dug yourself with, this means "date rape" was not considered rape until only 2 years ago.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:53 PM
1

You specifically were talking also about legal definitions and only now after you've moved further and further away from your initial claim about "date rape" not being considered rape do you claim that it happened only 2 years ago. Also, I already replied to your new goal post position. 2 years ago it was still considered rape if you had had sex with an unconscious woman.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:47 PM
1

You cant get out of this hole you dug for yourself... even if you really only meant "perceptions", you can't defend the idea that only 2 years ago it wasn't considered rape to have sex with unconscious women. The FBI definition was/is there for statistical purposes but you won't find any statistics that use that definition, but you claim your interpretation trumps how everyone else interpreted it. And society sure didn't think it was not rape to have sex with unconscious women, not even if you g…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:44 PM
1

hahaha! And you believe that prior to January 2013 a doctor could have sex with unconscious patients and it was not considered rape.... Please, you're embarrassing yourself. I remember you said this changed in the 70's, then you argue yourself into a hole and now you must defend the idea that this actually all only changed 2 years ago. Just accept you made a mistake, jeeeeeez :DDDDD
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:36 PM
1

lololoolol Again... the old definition with the word "forcible" was changed in January 2013. Not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, only about 2 years ago. If you believe that fucking an unconscious or sleeping woman was not legally rape until 2 years ago you're nuts. Just stop! It's over!
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:32 PM
1

LOL ok one more time for the lulz. That is laughably stupid if you think that is how it was up until January 2013 which is when the definition the FBI used, the one you're talking about, was changed.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:28 PM
1

The old definition did not mean it was legal to have sex with unconscious or sleeping women. Find me a proper legal source that says that is how it was. You can't, you won't. It also has nothing to do with date rape, it would mean doctors could have sex with their patients after they put them under anesthetic and it wouldn't be considered rape. I wonder why you bother replying when you have no sources. Seriously now, no sources, so that's it we're done.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:23 PM
1

And that proof some terrible guilt of ... something. Uh, it shows it wasn't "date rape" at all it was about being incapacitated. In any case, you still didn't demonstrate it in any way at all. So no sources again. You always do this, claim there is evidence and then never provide any. It would be so easy to show me the law you're talking about, but no. It's fun to see the level of crazy you get to, but I have better things to do now. Until next time! Also, PS: your starting point is that anythin…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:12 PM
1

You only specified incapacitated after a long string of replies. In either case you still haven't provided any sources. If there's no source in the next reply from you I'm going to take that as a unspoken admission you can't find one and that we're done here.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 07:19 PM
2

I didn't. Read what I wrote again and the subject of this thread.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 07:17 PM
1

What have you been saying then? In what way was forcing a woman to have sex with you not considered rape? You're the one making the claim, you show me a source. I'm not going to do all the work for you and we might as well stop talking if you refuse
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:26 PM
1

Lol you have shown me nothing, I'm not rejecting anything. If you have evidence please do present it. Maybe you are already aware of how poor your evidence is. It should be rather easy to prove. I can easily find information about the updated FBI definition, have something on par with that? And yes you did make that claim, otherwise what have we been talking about this whole time? Why tell me you aren't saying this, when I have been phrasing it like that ever since you said date rape wasn't cons…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 06:22 PM
1

lol, you haven't even tried to give me any sources to reject. I asked you for 2 things. Where is the law you are talking about, and where is evidence of the social attitude that a man is justified in forcing a woman to have sex with him so long as they are on a date? If you aren't prepared to even try then there's nothing left to say.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:21 PM
1

I still see no sources or evidence. Clearly we're done.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:09 PM
1

Not if it involved someone who was incapacitated. o_O Just stop... Where was there a legal distinction saying that if someone is on a date and is unconscious it wasn't rape? Thats just dishonest goal stetting. Uh ..how? You first claimed date rape wasn't considered to be rape. I finally get you to accept that there was no legal distinction saying it wasn't rape if you were on a date, and I ask you to demonstrate that societal attitudes at the time didn't consider it rape, and you call that disho…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:05 PM
1

So legally it was rape just as I said. Thanks... I think now you need to find an example of anyone saying just because a girl goes on a date the man is free to force any sexual act he wants on the girl no matter what. If that was the social attitude it shouldn't be too hard to find examples of that PS. I certainly never said rape has always been historically treated exactly the same. I actually said the opposite of that, I simply wasn't agreeing that it was legal or socially acceptable to violen…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:47 PM
1

and then I correct you There is no definition of rape which said anything like "but not if you are on a date". Disagree? Ok, then show me. You don't get to just keep repeating yourself. This is the thing, if you want to argue against them or their points - you have to first know what they are. We cant just claim that rape has always been treated and recognized the way it is today, when its obviously not true and for that to somehow be a solid argument etc. Yes yes, we've been over this part a 10…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:54 PM
1

It wasn't generally considered rape. Yes it was. You could not violently rape a woman and society/the law say it wasn't rape because they were on a date. Date rape was much more of a gray area because of how difficult it was/is to prove, along with the rape laws which didn't account for toys, fingers or anal sex. That is not the same thing as saying that forcing women to have sex with you on a date was legal. Look, I don't want to go on and on for days here. Well I have better things to do as we…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:42 PM
1

The notion of acquaintance rape and rape that doesn't involve violent force from a stranger is relatively new. It is just not true that if a woman went on a date with a man he could force her to have sex with him and it wouldn't be considered rape. This was never a distinction in the law. It was always about it being much more difficult to prove. In the 19th century the AOC was set at 12. If you were talking about all of human history 19th century would make it "relatively" recently. You said "f…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:22 PM
1

It all depends on what you consider to be "date rape" now doesn't it? I already defined what I meant by that, but you didn't. "Date rape" was always rape, the issue was that it was very difficult to prove consent. It's possible for date rape to be far more violent than stranger rape, but now we have people specifically defining things to be rape in a way that I would not define it to be. Can you show me that "fairly recently" we were cool with adults having sex with 12 year olds?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:00 PM
2

As someone pointed out here in the comments, not all degrees are worth the same. They might have more degrees, but they might be in relatively worthless subjects like social studies. What a lot of wasted money on debt! I live in the UK where it seems to be MUCH cheaper to get a university education than the US. Over there I really think they need to start hammering home the point to women especially to get a degree in something useful or they're going to be saddled with debt with a degree no one…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 02:43 PM
1

It really isn't about eugenics. The scientific thinking behind it is that castration will reduce sexual desire, it isn't the idea that they think the rapists or child molester's will breed more rapists or child molesters. If that was the reasoning they'd be doing it for other crimes as well. The other aspect is probably the threat of the trauma of being castrated.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 02:04 PM
1

In the same way considering sex with a 12year old is rape is fairly recent. And you can show evidence of this "fairly" recent change? I'm not talking about some backwards country in the middle east. Before date rape was considered rape, and people conceptualized rape as brutalization of strangers in alleys, people didn't consider date rape to be rape - how can it be if rape is a stranger brutalizing someone in an alley. I already replied to this. This is the second time I've shown you. So you ar…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 12:47 PM
1

No it wasn't. That's a recent thing. Keep reading... Then there is no need to teach safe driving, not to drink drive, not to commit paternity fraud, not to steal, not to hit ... etc I know you already know that studies into rapists show it is something only perpetrated by a very small percentage of the population and that they already know what they did was wrong and that this is one of the reasons they get off on it. Don't act like it is something people need "reminding" about. And once again I…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 12:19 PM
1

Forcing yourself on your date was always rape. However if we are talking about people that think women shouldn't need to say "no", or shouldn't need to tell a man they aren't interested, or that if she has had a drink it's rape, then if that is your definition as well I guess you're right. I don't agree with that definition however. I'm not pleading a special case. If we teach people not to hurt others emotionally or physically, rape being bad is a given. I'm actually perfectly fine with teachin…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:58 AM
2

You don't need to be taught specifically something is wrong to know something is wrong. How did I know rape was wrong, even though I wasn't specifically taught rape is wrong? According to this girl most men "wouldn't even think about rape", even at the same time they are being taught rape is "an option" and that "rape is cool". I certainly wasn't taught anything positive about rape, but I still knew it was wrong despite never specifically having a whole class devoted to telling me that raping so…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:46 AM
3

I said there wasn't any and there doesn't need to be. She might be satirising that, except she also said men are taught rape is "an option" and that "rape is cool".
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:01 AM
3

If you were taught the 10 commandments then you were taught the Golden Rule. As I said it was made pretty clear that rape was obviously wrong. You don't need to teach people specifically about rape in order for them to know it is wrong just as you don't need to teach them murder is wrong for them to get the message. We also know actual rapists know what they are doing and that is what they get off on, they aren't doing it by accident. Also the lady in this video is talking about stranger rape wh…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 09:52 AM
7

What are you talking about? They met in 1980. He was a small time personality then, making a living at it but not huge like he became later in the 80's. Ok... :S... so now what happened before we are married should be taken into account in a marriage? I have a girlfriend now, if lets say in 10 years we get married, does that mean my success in the next 10 years should be relevant in a divorse settlement? And what happens if we broke up a few times? It just makes it sound like even more nonsense.…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:36 AM
3

How do you know she did "absolutely nothing" to help him? I was clearly talking about marriage laws in general, not specifically about her. I don't know what she did, but as I said, apparently she wasn't there for arguably the hardest part of his career anyway. You say he was 'small time' when they married, which to me sounds like you're saying he was some kind of unsuccessful amateur. But that doesn't seem an accurate portrayal when I read the Wiki entry for that time period. But even if she ha…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 02:52 AM
19

If OP's sources are correct she got more than 50%, and if they aren't married anymore why should she get ownership in his business at all sharing his future profits? Apparently his ex-wife wasn't even there before he became Hulk Hogan so arguably the hardest part of his career he achieved without her. Also this is the absurdity of marriage laws, isn't? I don't see any reason why even if you divorse they still treat the fact that you were married as to mean that any money you earned might as well…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:53 AM
3

and prior to that everyone was taught the 10 commandments. Not everyone... But of course most of those have nothing to do with ethics and are more about obeying and not worshiping other deities. I also recall being taught the "Golden Rule" which can also be found in the Bible, "Do to others as you would have them do to you.". I think that covers rather a lot of ethical issues without even needing to mention them specifically. I wasn't taught not to rape, just as I was also not taught to not murd…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:49 AM
4

She did say men are 'taught' that "rape is an option" and that "rape is cool". She also made a "rape joke" when I'm sure you remember many of her fellow feminists saying 'rape is never funny'. Apparently rape jokes can be funny afterall.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:46 AM
3

She said that she'd have to drug anyone she wants to rape, 'cuz men only get erect when they want it. I've even seen many men agree with this, which is mind blowing to me considering being male means they will already have had many experiences for them to know this is obviously not true.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:44 AM
2

it would be great to know that guys are growing up learning that rape isn't cool & we're all afraid of it. I'm wondering in what way are men learning rape is cool? The research seems to show rapists know what they are doing is wrong and they get off on it. They aren't doing it by accident, certainly not because we are telling them it's "cool". MOST MEN are good people who never even think about it. I don't understand. If men are being taught that rape is "an option" and "is cool", how are most m…
/r/MensRights09/04/15 02:34 PM
1

I said a lot more than that. I said it gave men lower intrinsic worth, for example A man's worth in society is based on his ability to protect and provide and their output. That is how men are seen as having worth. It is also clear from how we talk about and deal with the genders that we care more about a womens lives/pain than men's lives/pain. That is why we will report on a tragedy and say X number of people were killed, "including x women and children", because we feel women and children dea…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 06:57 PM
1

I don't think that "protector and provider" suggests disposable, though. It certainly suggests capable. You said male disposability is about men being valued for their output. If your role is that of a protector and provider it means your role is to be valued for your output. You think I'm playing down the evidence, but I don't see that it is evidence of higher risks is evidence of disposability Being forced into being disposable in war is not a "higher risk", as if they had a choice in the matt…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 03:47 AM
2

So in addition to not accepting male disposability you can't accept that we see women's lives as more important. It's as if we don't see news stories that report some tragedy and tell us the victims "include women and children" so we know we're meant to feel especially bad about it. What evidence supports 'disposable' that I haven't covered in 'idea of tough masculinity'? I already mentioned several things. You could call male disposability "tough masclulinity" if you wanted, but there's no gett…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 03:00 AM
1

'Disposable' suggests that men are valued only for their output There is plenty of evidence that this is predominantly the case. What evidence is there that shows it isn't? Why do you think we report "women and children" deaths to be particularly tragic?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 02:10 AM
2

It is not the idea that men are disposable, but the idea that men are tougher and should "just do it", so to speak, when faced with a dangerous task, rather than delay and think about health ans safety precautions, etc. So why the reluctance to use the word "disposable"? It isn't just jobs, it's also expectations and responsibilities/obligations where men were/are expected to look after women, to fight and die for their country/women, to put their own lives last. I think you just don't like the …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 02:00 AM
0

I was going to say not necessarily but then I remembered we were talking about guys with muscles, so yea he probably would have to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:59 AM
4

Well hang on, the man might be short. (Nit pick)
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:37 AM
-2

You dont really think women can compete with men in athletics do you? For example if you look at the history of the stats for the Olympic 100m sprint women wouldn't even get to qualify to race. I haven't looked it up but I am fairly certain the male serve speeds will be significantly faster than the women's serves.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:35 AM
1

Psychologically? Well I think on an individual level yes absolutely, but on a macro level probably not. I just think sociologically there isn't anywhere near as much motivation/pressure for women to succeed in the same way and I am sure this has to have a biological component because of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:27 AM
6

The fact that men feel the need to tell other men NOT to have sex with "crazy" women kind of implies there are men that are having sex with crazy women, doesn't it? Also if "someone is tired of her shit" it implies a relationship of some kind. Horrible/crazy women might not last in a relationship, but to "get laid" is very different. Still not sure what this has to do with what I wrote. I don't even think you know what the topic is.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:23 AM
4

I don't consider myself a "red piller". I would consider myself more intellectually on the MGTOW side. But thanks for the assumption and not answering the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 12:09 AM
3

I think people should deal with one point at a time, don't you think? I'm also not sure how you expected me to know you wanted to move on, read your mind? And I still don't know what your new point is that you want me to address. I think I already have.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 09:43 PM
4

... I know... and I already replied to that :/. This conversation should have been over the moment you said "yes" to what I wrote, because it means you understand OP doesn't actually know what it is like. The fact that she thinks she does is really the root of her incomprehension of the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 09:27 PM
6

I didn't ignore it. I directly replied to it. Women only rarely approach men, and usually you have to have specific real and/or perceived traits in order to get that. You say you agree. Since you agree then you also agree that the OP doesn't in fact know what it's like for men, just like I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 09:06 PM
1

Yea... and I just disagreed with those points... They DO have other options. Men choose those options because they have to, as well as women that don't know about what they can earn from sex work, or know but still don't want to do it. There are many women that choose to do it... 1. Because they can earn in 1 hour what would take a full time job to earn. Earn more than a top paid professional in the city.... 2. Because they like sex and don't really see it as that difficult to do. Some even say …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 09:01 PM
1

If they could earn money without having sex at all I'm sure most would prefer that, then they could choose the people and the time to have random casual sex . I don't know if your reply was intended to be an argument against what I wrote or what.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 08:46 PM
8

If you are a particularly fit, good-looking or confident man Not "or". For women to approach you, you have to have more than "confidence". Good looks, and/or you have 'status', like you're in a band, or you're in a popular sports team. Women don't "approach men" very often because they don't need to. Why risk rejection when she can wait for men to approach her and then choose the one she wants, knowing they are already interested in her? So when they do it is because they are really interested. …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 08:44 PM
9

How? Girls can "be themselves" and choose which guy she wants out of the men that hit on her, and she already knows they are interested. The whole dynamic is different.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 08:27 PM
1

As I said a moment ago, when technology allows them to get more and more sexual gratification without a real person, they will have less and less incentive to find a real person. I don't really see how this is something anyone can argue with since we see it right now with interactions online.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 06:26 PM
1

I have had sex with real women that were just going through the motions and who acted very bored. I have by comparison had way better times masturbating. Actual sex with a real woman that really wants to fuck you is better and will probably be better for a long long time, but we can't all find that easily or at the right time, so that doesn't really mean anything in so far as what we're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 06:19 PM
1

I'm not talking about men who can't get laid, just for those who find it more difficult. And when technology allows them to get more and more sexual gratification without a real person, they will have less and less incentive to find a real person. So cybersex? That is also already a thing. It's what webcams exist for. Cyber Sex with VR, real sexual feeling, and quality graphics. It is like saying playing Wing Commander 1 is the same experience as playing Star Citizen, or Doom 1 is the same as pl…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 06:06 PM
2

I was saying that you cannot assume that someone's fantasies are actually something they want. Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality. You cannot conflate the two. You act like it has no relevance. If I watch and enjoy gay porn I'm gay, or bi sexual. I'm certainly not a straight man. If I watch "rape porn/roleplay" I probably am into BDSM or at least bondage of some kind, even if I like more extreme things in porn or in fiction than I do in real life. edit: Also the study showed men and women re…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:55 PM
1

(and those people are very rare) Not really. but it won't create a wave in society of replacing sex for any significant number of people. Really depends on how far technology has progressed, doesn't it? We don't even need the AI, which I think will be the hardest part to achieve. People could have sex with each other's avatars, like some kind of MMO. You say this won't replace sex, but the Internet has replaced real life friends for a lot of people in many ways. Imagine being totally isolated, c…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:47 PM
13

It's actually much worse than that, since women can wear no makeup or look pretty much however she wants and it will still be easier for most of them than for most men. If a man really followed advice like the OP's they'd stay lonely forever.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:42 PM
9

"Just be yourself" is terrible advice. It's led to a generation of men who are sitting in their mother's basement waiting for their manic pixie dream girl to swoop in and show them that the power was in them all along. Yea, OP is just perpetrating the terrible advice I remember hearing about 15 years ago when I were a far younger laddie. "Just be yersulf and girls will like you!". Then you start to think that advice was a pile of crap and start thinking "women just want assholes", as you, the "n…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:41 PM
9

Look I know it better than anyone. But you are also female. The premise here is that it is different for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:40 PM
2

Lol, what? You assumed I was a women because I didn't want a threesome? Really? Never encountered a man to say what you said. Since your premise is based on you speaking for everyone, I could more imagine a woman would do that than a man. Why? It just doesn't sound interesting or fun. It also sounds like a logistical nightmare. There's no way I could devote enough attention to both women to make the experience equitable and enjoyable for all. All this talk about porn and it is like you never wat…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:36 PM
1

Not for a long time anyway. But my point was never that it can 100% replace the real thing, just that it doesn't have to. Sex with a real person is still usually better than jerking off, even if you paid them. As technology improves, the drive to be with a real person will be dramatically reduced further.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:32 PM
2

Wait, what? Why does being attracted to women make me bi-sexual? Doesn't that make me heterosexual? I just assumed you were female going by your responses. So you are a man, and you like women. Why wouldnt you like a threesome then? And are you seriously suggesting that you not wanting to have a threesome with 2 women to be common to men in general?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:23 PM
1

Of course but people will still be motivated have real sex And being with a woman that actually want to have sex with you is still superior to paying an escort to have sex with you. But the availability to pay for sex makes it easier to deal with not having women that actually want to have sex with you. Our emotions regarding romantic interactions are strongly linked to our sexual desires. If we have no sexual desires at all, we have much less desire for a boyfriend or girlfriend than someone th…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:21 PM
2

Your premise in criticising the linked study was that "porn" inherently does not involve enjoyable sex and that this was some kind of fact. Btw, you said you get turned on by lesbian porn sometimes. I don't get turned on by gay porn. If you get turned on by lesbian porn, it means you have to be somewhat bi-sexual. This is sometimes hard to accept, as some people seem to think that it's possible to be sexually attracted to their own sex while still being hetrosexual.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 05:12 PM
2

It's your own personal preference. You generalised about all porn in a discussion that was about "porn" as a whole. You claim it isn't enjoyable sex when even "mainstream" porn comes in many different forms. Example: X-Art vs Bang Bus. Your feelings aren't necessarily shared by everyone so don't presume to act like it is a fact that sex in porn is not enjoyable. Having said that, it is true that there is porn where some positions and locations wouldn't be too enjoyable in real life because they …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:41 PM
2

Not all mainstream porn is "not enjoyable sex" either. But you didn't say mainstream porn at first anyway, you said "porn". That can mean a lot of different things. Amateur porn is probably the most popular kind of porn, involving ordinary people filming themselves having sex. And btw if I look at the top 10 biggest grossing films of the year and decide I dont like any of them, it doesn't mean I don't like films.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 04:25 PM
2

So now it's mainstream mass produced porn. #notallporn
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 03:59 PM
3

Your first mistake is in thinking that "porn" is one thing
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 02:49 PM
3

Again I don't know what porn you are watching....
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:50 PM
1

Of course they will want connection but the sexual needs are interlocked with it. It's the same difference between having no friends and being completely isolated and having only online friends. One scenario is far, far worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:09 PM
2

Most people don't enjoy their jobs. Most men don't get to choose sex work whereas pretty much any women can earn more than a inner city professional with no qualifications whatsoever. There ARE other options, they just know that they would rather have sex for (a LOT of) money than spend dozens of hours a week working a low paying job
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:05 PM
2

Do you know how much women can earn with sex work? Do you know many women actually like casual sex with strangers? There may be other options but none pay so well with as little hours
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:03 PM
2

Hahaha no you also need to be very rich.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:01 PM
3

But men are accused of objectifying women even though so many women own literal disembodied fake penis'. Not all of them look like penis', but plenty are made to look like that on purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 01:00 PM
4

Seriously, have some imagination. It will change a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 12:55 PM
5

Wow you must like some fucked up porn, or like really boring sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/15 11:59 AM
4

Because a woman is seen as degrading herself by allowing the disgusting male sexuality to ruin her. Still a 100000000000 times harder to be a manslut than a slut.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:31 AM
2

Why? Because it's the easiest thing in the world to be a slut. Here's another reason why. Because a woman is seen as degrading herself by allowing the disgusting male sexuality to ruin her perfectness.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:31 AM
0

LOL Here's an alternative explanation. The woman is seen as debasing HERSELF by "allowing" the "disgusting" male sexuality from degrading her perfect female sexuality. I know this one recognizes society hates male sexuality and thinks female sexuality is perfect and beautiful, and so really it is misandry not misogyny that is to blame for the cultural double standard, so it will probably piss you off. Oh... and another reason why it is seen as different is that it is absurdly easy to be a slut, …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:29 AM
4

If you think you need ANYTHING other than just not being a complete bitch you're WAYYYY over thinking how much work you'd have to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:28 AM
2

Haha nice. Oh but you see it's different because it's a male power thing whatever privilege and what not, you can't objectify men they haven't been objectified throughout human history obvz /s
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:07 AM
1

I don't see these women as objects but feminists sure do want to tell me I should be
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:06 AM
1

If I may ask, why did you split up?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:05 AM
1

I dunno about that completely, I saw a news spot on him and some girls follow him on twitter and want to know all about him yadda yadda yadda. You're right though, because probably more men are interested in the personality of their favourite porn star than women are interested in any specific man in porn in any sense
/r/MensRights27/03/15 01:04 AM
11

They'll send men. Wouldn't want to risk the poor widdle sweethearts getting hwurt.... Women are incapable of hurting a man anyway, right?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:31 AM
4

This is actually pretty amazing. This is the kind of logic you'd see from Karen Straughan or Alison Tieman, completely reversing the commonly accepted way of thinking.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 01:01 AM
1

Really? Show me a feminist blog being outraged that a DV organisation is assuming men are perpetrators and women are victims.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:55 AM
1

Duh obviously all the male "victims" will call in and the female victims won't be able to get though /s
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:53 AM
1

Yea this is a photoshop of a website that doesn't exist duh! /S
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:52 AM
3

So it was a throw away comment at the end, so what? The purpose of the phone line is clear. It is to "help abusers" whereas the women's DV line is to help female victims. No mention there if you are a female abuser that wants to get help. What happens to them? Clearly they don't believe they exist.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:51 AM
5

The fact that the women's DV help line is for abuse victims not abusive women, but the male abuse line is for abusers that can also be referred somewhere if they just happen to be a victim
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:49 AM
4

You conveniently ignore that there is no line for abusive women getting help.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:48 AM
3

Well considering it was the last line and there is no equivalent for women yea it'd say it doesn't make a difference.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:47 AM
1

It needed to be the last throw away comment? Do they say women can get help if they are abusive?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:45 AM
30

Lol you mean men with weapons
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:38 AM
4

The most important part of this is that female circumcision really was shown to reduce aids infection, conducted by people that really didn't want to find out that was true. That was always their number 1 card to defend male circumcision, despite the fact that the standards of medical care there are abysmal and cause a lot of mutilation and partial/complete removal of the penis. And that we would never suggest circumcision in any other developed country to stop the spread of HIV, and because now…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 06:55 AM
1

... I refer you to my original comment.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 06:30 PM
1

You still don't seem to get the fact that their "solution" solves nothing that isnt easy to get around, creates more crime, and inspires more violence against women.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 06:28 PM
1

Masterbation is ungodly, to allow yourself to be tempted into it is Satans way of taking your soul!!! You must suppress those feelings my flock! Did Adam have sexual feelings for Eve? Of course not, it's not in the Bible, so we know that. Therefore we know that it is a depraved shameful act
/r/MensRights22/03/15 02:07 PM
1

So if you leave your house, if someone murders you that's "your fault" too right? I mean if you hadn't left the house you wouldn't have been murdered. Just trying to figure out where you stop applying your logic.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 01:45 PM
2

You didn't answer my question. Unless you did, which means you have a ridiculous use of the word "fault".
/r/MensRights22/03/15 09:02 AM
8

Lol sexual feelings are dirty, corrupt, degenerate and evil! wow someone was listening a bit too closely at Bible camp weren't they. YOU DEGENERATE PERVERTS ARE UNGODLY DORKSIDED!
/r/MensRights21/03/15 11:29 PM
5

Yea... I already replied to this here. No need for me to rewrite everything I already wrote. In short: women only rations inspires things to get worse, not better. It would have caused/allowed women to "double dip" (part of the reasoning to restrict rations for men is because of the idea that men would "double dip"). It would have allowed even more gang behaviour and violence against women and create/force innocent men that just want to feed themselves and their families to become criminals just…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 09:47 PM
2

so I don't really know what more you want from me at this point. Acceptance that there is good reason to be suspicious here, especially because Stella's entire marketing is to make you believe they ARE discriminating towards men. We're being told we're assholes for taking Stella at their word. The phrase the best solution at the time means it wasn't a good solution - but only in hindsight. LOL. Hindsight? We couldnt have foreseen any of these actions until it actually happened? Really? Bad men w…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:32 PM
1

Many men like all kinds of kinky sex. Women seem to have generally more limited kinks though. All you have to do is check out amateur porn to see that.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:30 PM
3

It is not the best solution it is a terrible solution. It not only screws over men and boys, it also screws over little girls with no women old enough to stand in line for them. It also makes gang raids and violence against the women more likely because if the only food is going to women, what do you expect is going to happen? Going by what this poster wrote, that is exactly what happened. It also doesn't stop men from threatening women with violence if they don't pretend they are part of their …
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:14 PM
2

A UN food aid program that only distributes food to women. Yea, I guess that was just expected or something, totally normal, nothing to see here. But a Stella marketing campaign specifically trying to make you think you are buying "water for women", should be assumed that their campaign ISN'T really gendered like THEY WANT you to think it is. In any case the fact that they have to market to our sense of giving a shit if it's women makes it relevant, regardless if it actually helps men and women …
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:10 PM
6

So despite the fact that it has happened before, we're "a bunch of assholes" for being suspicious about an aid program where the marketing literally appeals to our sense of giving a shit about women over men. Right.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:24 PM
6

Oh yes, suppress such an innate and primitive part of what makes you human. I'm sure that won't lead to psychological problems in the future.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:03 PM
3

Still hard to imagine?
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:01 PM
4

I am really not certain why you think it is so different as to be considered irrelevant.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:00 PM
5

Easy to say, if finding people to have sex with you every time you are horny is that easy for you.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 06:19 PM
25

Also, it may come as a shock, but some women honestly like that "demeaning" porn.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 06:16 PM
16

Feminists lying about things, I wonder why that's relevant? /s
/r/MensRights21/03/15 06:16 PM
9

Exactly, they even screwed over little girls if they don't have a mother or female old enough to get food for them.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 06:15 PM
15

When you aren't allowed food if you're male I'm not sure what they expected would happen
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:41 PM
9

That is why it is a mens rights issue. The fact that we have every reason to be suspicious that it will actually help men is in addition to that
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:40 PM
13

Yea.. women are seen that way, except all the women that aren't... and the fact that women are probably the biggest "superstars" in the mens movement. Eg Karen S, Erin P, Christina H S
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:32 PM
12

But its entirely his fault. hahahah.... wat? At what point would her actions have made a difference? If she had tortured him, then chopped him up into pieces, would that still be "entirely" his fault? Or is it just cause and effect? So if he accidently tripped over her bag and she stabbed him in the neck, that would have to be his fault too since if he hadn't then she wouldn't have stabbed him, right?
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:30 PM
61

In fact I recall feminists going ape shit over this exact reasoning when it was a rape of a woman
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:29 PM
2

This is true, however if it helps men, women, and children in the long run, does it matter if they use women and children as the face of their campaign to do so? We don't know if it will actually be used to help men (like the UN women only food programs). But even if we assume it will, the reason it is relevant to mens rights is the fact that we care about women more than men. This is just one more example of this.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:27 PM
3

You're male therefore you make them uncomfortable. That's bad enough.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:18 PM
1

I can't remember the quote now but someone who set up the affirmative consent legislation said there really wasn't any way to prove you consented.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:17 PM
6

The fact that it is "a better seller" is a mens issue.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:15 PM
6

HlYea... I am totally sure it won't be anything like this /s Also, they clearly recognise people will buy more Stella if they think they are helping women. Society caring more about women than men is a mens rights issue.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:13 PM
5

The campaign is designed to appeal to traditionalist emotions on multiple levels, but it's clearly not designed to provide water only to women. The campaign is relevant because it shows yet again that we care more about women than about men, otherwise they wouldn't have specified women in the marketing. And you also ignore the fact that we have had charity aid programs that did only provide to women and girls in the recent past. Using bolded letters doesn't change facts.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:11 PM
4

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/un-sets-up-womenonly-food-aid-in-haiti-1884361.html
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:08 PM
4

It's a marketing hook that relies on the fact that we care more about women than men. What a shocker.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:06 PM
2

Yea, because it's not like that never happened before
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:04 PM
1

No, surely it means man, woman, children? I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:03 PM
1

I am disappointed by your lack of rebuttal.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:03 PM
8

The water isn't just for women, but for everyone. Even if that is true, and as someone else pointed out we KNOW that food aid programs have literally only distributed to women before... they clearly think if they say it is for women people will donate more than if they think people will believe men will get any of it.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 02:01 PM
1

I'd have asked them if what they are saying is that to get rid of harmful gender roles we need to keep promoting harmful gender roles.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 01:56 PM
1

Wanting to exterminate all black people and wanting to get into a position of power to make that happen I think counts as a terrible person. Hitler was apparently kind to his mother and is responsible for a non-trivial amount of German infrastructure. I guess he was an ok guy too.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 12:26 PM
2

Apparently you missed the point that this wasnt just about them being racist. Though, I don't know why the article didn't include Pankhurst for her White Feather campaign, the bigger point here is also that these women are often idealised to absurd proportions when as can be seen the truth of it is they were "terrible people".
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:32 PM
1

Well that's nice but we don't live in your abstract alternative economy. You implied female dominated positions were underpaid because they were female dominated, but that is false, it is not because they are female. If you could get away with paying women less because they were female massive corporations would have moved long ago to get their workforce to be female dominated in as many areas as they could because then they could "undervalue" and "underpay" them.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:02 PM
1

They might like a successful driven women but that doesn't mean that they also aren't concerned that the women in question will be harder to please. Men that still go for these women but aren't able to please them, due to not being attractive enough or (probably more importantly) not being at least as successful as they are, are really just deluding themselves. There is a reason why people say men are afraid of successful women, but they claim it is because men like to be dominant over a woman a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 07:36 PM
1

Quite right. And since they have probably spent years gaining that success and men see it as at least as a negative mostly, they'll get past over for a younger or at least less successful woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 03:42 PM
0

No it's because women like that are likely to be harder to please.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 03:31 PM
1

Just a quick note in general. A woman that makes more money will be in general harder to please, if she is also very attractive it makes this even more true. I'm not afraid of successful women I'm afraid their demands will be higher. This is why you will hear so many successful women say "where have all the men gone?" Well they are still there but now they just don't count to them because the number of men making more than them is reduced
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 03:27 PM
3

I'd love to see someone like Alison or Karen on there
/r/MensRights18/03/15 04:07 PM
1

Teaching is female dominated too but didn't used to be, we didn't start paying teachers peanuts just because women started dominating the profession. It's just capitalism, how much work you do or how hard it is has no bearing on how much that job will pay
/r/MensRights18/03/15 03:53 PM
1

I would immediately get them to accept this is a giant reposition of goal posts
/r/MensRights18/03/15 03:50 PM
2

What?
/r/MensRights18/03/15 08:30 AM
7

It goes far beyond feminisim mate. It wasn't feminisim that started paternalising women, they just took that mindset and gave it acid.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 06:08 PM
1

I think it is a tricky situation... So I hope you indulge me a little to explain my thoughts. It might seem like a digression but I'm getting to it. Throughout history technology has been what has allowed us to become more ethical, to give people more rights, health and safety laws, social security, national health services, yadda yadda yadda. I believe the suffragist/suffragette movement for example was only able to succeeded because of the changes in technological, economic, and political stru…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 06:14 AM
2

So you accept your original argument is fatally flawed, because you understand they are not at all comparable. IOW: It doesn't matter if he used a condom or spermicide it protects him against pregnancy only marginally tiny % compared with womens options, so you did in fact debunk your own premise. Next you move onto the implication that it is mens fault anyway for being a market for products like Viagra. implying this is the reason we don't have better male contraception yet. You seem to have a …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 01:30 AM
1

You still think spermicide and condoms are comparable to the options women have? I think you need to learn some sex ed.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 10:41 PM
2

Thats the thing, if MRA's were so bad they'd attack what MRAs actyally said and they wouldn't have to keep lying about what they say and so shamelessly take them out of context. They wouldnt try and connect people like Elliot Rodger to MRAs when he had no connection at all just because they wanted him to be involved with the MRM and associate it with a psychopathic violent mentality against women. They so wanted him to be someone he wasn't so they just pretended he was anyway. It is not like cer…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 10:28 PM
1

Does he even though?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/15 06:26 PM
1

Again I hope this is sarcasm
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 10:26 PM
1

Yet a condom is not anywhere near as safe as the options women have. They also have options both before and after.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:18 PM
4

I hope this is scarcasm
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:10 PM
0

So women don't need to be careful? Or are you of the mindset that sex is just something men do to helpless women?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:10 PM
3

And a passport and a bag of $10,000 freshly laundered bills
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:09 PM
1

You think condoms are 100%? Lol? And what if she said she had a coil? And do you therefore think women shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she could have chosen a plethora of birth control options?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:05 PM
3

Many girls claim they love to please. In reality? Not so much. Or at least if they do they mean in certain circumstances. That isnt to say they dont exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:38 AM
4

Figures. Yes, it is hard to find...
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/15 05:37 AM
7

If we are talking quality of sex, then a passionate unselfish 5 is better than any selfish lifeless 9. I love hot girls, but what I care about most is how willing they are to please and how into sex they are, because I know I love to. The BIGGEST turn on is someone that gets off on pleasing me as much as I on pleasing them. I want to feel like Im a massive turn on for them. That is... quite hard to find.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/15 10:16 PM
1

No they said it was representative of the male mindset in general, which is how they attempted to justify making some point about rape culture. And FYI, Rodger was a member of a PUA HATE group. Doesn't seem like he identified with them very much.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:12 PM
2

I know guys which have had no relationships, but also many who have had loads. I tell you what though, every women that wanted to has had tons of sexual partners regardless of what they looked like. There is literally no barrier if you are female. As a woman you can even make tons of money out of men PAYING to fuck you, whereas on the other hand an above average attractive men will have trouble "giving it away."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/15 09:08 PM
2

Id say something is off with the survey. If it is 4 it is likely a very poor indication of the average. I would suspect the forever alones and possibly old men if they are included are pushing down the numbers. Take a look at the average wage. That is not really representative of the average wage due to including top earners and the homeless and unemployed. You also have to consider underreporting and overreporting. What is the result for girls? I know many girls that flit to relationship to cas…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/15 04:33 PM
4

So... what women find attractive, is not relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/15 04:23 PM
6

Since I see plenty of assholes in long term relationships and we know many women find these kinds of men very attractive sexually (which you admit), I'm not sure what context we are to put your comment. Don't tell me women can't tell these guys they go out with are nice guys. They go out with them because they seem exciting. You're going to have to recognise there are things about what women are attracted to in men that you feel are distasteful, because otherwise you're living in a dream world.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/15 04:19 PM
2

Is that what was happening? You're right. Feminists on Elliot Roger weren't blaming the murders on all men, they were just saying his mindset was representative of all men.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 12:27 AM
6

Oh I agree Elliot Roger is a prime example of rape culture, where men feel entitled to sex. That is why he decided to go on a rape spree! ... Oh ... he didn't rape anyone?... Ok well he went on a killing spree and killed dozens of women before they caught him!! ... Oh no wait, he only killed 2 women.... Hmmm, but he really hated women, so he decided to get up and close with a knife so he could feel their life draining from their body, the sick bastard! Wait... ...it was actually his 4 male roomm…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 12:22 AM
3

Feminist response would be... So what you're saying is, it is womens fault!! You hate women!
/r/MensRights12/03/15 06:09 PM
3

His mindset isn't comparable to all men, it's just that his belief that he was entitled to sex, which was central to his motivation to the killings, is also widely held by the male population. Oh dear lets try this again... If a psychopathic woman murders her husband because she wants his life insurance money because she is a gold digger and feels entitled to it, is that comparable to the general mindset of non-murderous non-psychopathic women that feel entitled to men buying them things and tak…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:59 PM
5

That too.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:53 PM
5

They so wanted him to be the poster child to justify hating men, but he just wasn't. The zero connection to mens rights, the fact the killed more men than women, that the men he did kill he did with a knife (far more personal), only killing 2 women despite this long planned murder spree, being an example of "entitlement to sex" and "rape culture" despite not raping anyone, etc. It is basically the best example of where facts just do not matter to them but where they will make the connections any…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:51 PM
4

Replace women with feminists saying these things and you have it right
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:52 AM
24

Lol Elliot Rodger wasn't only said to have hated women, but that his mindset was comparable to all men.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:36 AM
3

lol. No they both involve aliens. Raelians are honest about their beliefs in aliens though. Raelians: http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/raelians.htm Scientologists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7EEOMbBIO8
/r/MensRights10/03/15 09:31 PM
5

Hahaha I love the name. Of COURSE what they actually mean is hiring a handyman. I guess this shows what they think of husbands. And people wonder why I don't want to get married edit: This is a good quote: Husband for an Hour does have two women on its staff -- but they are not called "wives for an hour" and do not fix taps. They are available to do ironing, washing or babysitting.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:35 PM
4

There are health benefits for snipping bits off female vaginas as well, even regarding HIV, but we won't ever allow that.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:33 PM
4

Yes I agree. I don't see what the problem is snipping off bits off vagina either /s
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:32 PM
3

Shame they are an alien cult. :S
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:31 PM
8

Bizzare story. At first I thought was going to be rare case of a pro-feminist organisation actually supporting a mens rights issue equally. Then I read it is the Raeliens!!! Hahahaa what the hell! Well I for one welcome our alien leaders. All hail Rael!
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:29 PM
3

You have no valid problems and if you get upset about them that's just more evidence that they aren't valid. /s
/r/MensRights10/03/15 03:15 AM
3

Kinda nice if it's there just to piss them off
/r/MensRights10/03/15 03:08 AM
1

Saying it isn't equal isn't saying it isn't 50%. Worse than being wrong, your attempts at trying to re-frame your statement is flat-out disingenuous. lol wow... I didn't move any goal posts and I'm really not sure how you have managed to think I have. Maybe you just don't understand what moving goal posts are. Saying it isn't equal isn't saying it isn't 50% In what way? Imagine you have a bag of marbles. If out of those marbles 50% are black and 50% are white it means you have an equal number of…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 11:13 PM
1

I could easily link you to examples of them talking about this but you seem so willfully ignorant of the whole thing I kind of want to make you do some work. If it is not considered funny for the reason I said they think it is funny, what reason do they consider it funny? Through actually looking up these misandry jokes and seeing the kind of things those that make them are saying, you will learn that what I said is accurate on your own. I will say though I have encountered another opinion in th…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 11:11 AM
1

I don't know anything about US sports. If you wouldn't put your money on something with such certainty then there's no reason to gamble at all. Maybe instead of trying to make your analogy work you could stop trying to make your analogy work.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 11:07 AM
1

Not sure how to respond since it does seem rather relevant to me and I've had quite a number of feminists not seem to understand what 50% means. The ones that happen to have said it straight out were few in number but that doesn't mean they didn't use different words to say the same thing. For example if you look up articles right now written about jobs where women earn more (even including traditionally male jobs) or how unmarried childless women under 30 working full time earn more than their …
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:42 AM
1

... I don't think you even know what your argument is anymore. Here's a suggestion, go find out what people are thinking when they make these jokes. They don't find it so funny for no reason at all.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 02:05 AM
1

I don't need to find a joke funny myself to know why it is meant to be funny or why another group finds it funny. If you laugh there is a reason for it. And yes I do have evidence, all you have to do is to google them talking about it and read what they say, which I can only presume you haven't done yet. I asked you to find me a reason they find it so funny that isn't the reason I gave, can you do that?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:48 AM
1

Apparently I assumed falsely that you had more than a cursury knowledge of the subject. I started to look up some examples for you but maybe you can work it out yourself. What reason do they give for why they find jokes about being misandric funny, if it isn't for the reasons I gave? Oh and ps. The "I bathe in male tears" is one of those "misandric jokes", like a spin-off that just doesn't happen to include the words misandry in it PPS. If you correct yourself you do that in an edit, I can't rea…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 12:34 AM
2

Why are you now talking about women? I wasn't even talking about all feminists. I am talking about the ones that make these jokes about misandry. But you're saying it as though every single person who finds misandry jokes funny, do it because they believe it doesn't exist in the first place which is just...not true. You can make jokes about misandry, but THE jokes WE are talking about come from people that believe it is impossible to be sexist to men and that is why they find it funny. You can m…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:57 PM
1

Is it possible for someone to be so clueless and ignorant they can wear a bracelet like this but also be a genuine egalitarian? Normally I would say it would be vastly improbable but yes. However in this case I actually think it is impossible for this to be the case. For someone to be truly egalitarian they would have had to have put a significant amount of thought into it to break away from their gynocentric societal programming. Therefore if one did that they would not wear such a bracelet. Ag…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:54 PM
2

Why do they think misandry jokes are funny? Because they believe it is impossible to exist. It doesn't matter how hateful they are, to them the idea that it is ever sexism against men is a joke. It would be like KKK members mocking the idea that they are being called anti-Semites by wearing badges that say "I am a proud anti-semite" and when accused of hating Jews they say it is just a joke and because the Jews run the world it is impossible for them to hate Jews because Jews are the ones that h…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:46 PM
1

Well first I didn't say all those that "identify" as feminists. I was referring to one that wears a bracelet like this. Secondly, I would probably have to take issue with your definition of "an egalitarian who cares about both men's and women's issues". My definition would most assuredly be more strict than yours. Frankly most people would not fit that definition. Most people are gynocentric. Most that identify as feminist most certainly are gynocentric, and that is why it is an incredibly secur…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:34 PM
10

India. 90% mental.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:30 PM
13

From how these people define equality I suspect there's actually more women. I've literally (yes literally) had feminists argue 50% is not half.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:27 PM
2

I mean, "Male Tears" is spewing misandry, sure. But it's not exactly the same as a bracelet, that says misandry, right? Well it is actually, because it all comes from the same people. Why do they think misandry jokes are funny? Because this. I wonder what she would think of the "New South Africa" where the dynamic between black and white people means according to her logic it is impossible for white people to be racist to black people.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:20 PM
3

I don't know if the woman wearing that bracelet is an egalitarian who cares about both men's and women's issues Not sure how that is possible if you wear this bracelet.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:16 PM
-1

The opposite of misogyny. Was it that hard to understand?
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:14 PM
1

So it wasn't 100% satire? You do genuinely feel less interested in listening to women musicians (singer songwriters I presume) Was any part exaggerated to satire the OP? Obviously how they interpret what you said still isn't what you actually think, and does make sense (you just said it in politically incorrect language) but this does change things a little.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:29 PM
2

For me the biggest difference isn't even how socially acceptable we see the two it's the fact that if a man tried that it would never work, but you will always find men willing to do anything for women.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:13 PM
1

Just found this comment due to the manboobz linked post on it. Unsurprisingly what you wrote was satire of something some stupid feminist said about male musicans.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 03:46 PM
2

Does it? Can you actually articulate a response to what I wrote? Because all you are telling me is that you feel women are being blamed. There is no reason you need to interprete what I wrote as blaming women, and that is also besides the point as to whether what I said was true or not
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/15 02:12 PM
1

Its amazing though isn't it? Someone can argue that women need the freedom to have as much sex as they want without being looked down on "because they are sexual beings just like men are". But if you actually treat them like that suddenly it becomes "rude" to assume they might want to have sex. If it is "rude" that presumes there must be something wrong with it. There is always this cognitive dissonance with this topic where they can't rationalise their feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/15 12:13 PM
3

In what way did I turn it into the fault of women? I said I don't accept emotional arguments and that is what you are giving me. You just "feel" like I was blaming women. Look at what I actually said.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/15 09:56 AM
1

What job does he have? How much money does he make? Who makes more money? How physically fit is he? Not tying to be a dick here but these are the important questions
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 11:13 PM
1

Exactly.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 11:11 PM
1

They get to feel higher status themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 10:46 PM
3

Please do elaborate. I don't accept feelings based arguments though.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 10:35 PM
5

"Slut shaming" happened/s because women are considered to be allowing men to harm them with their 'disgusting/dangerous' male sexuality. Today female sexuality is encouraged, and male sexuality even more demonised.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 01:53 PM
2

The thing is male sexuality has only ever been seen as "good" in the sense that if you are able to attract lots of women, it says something about how personally successful you are and what social status you have. On the other hand, male sexuality has also always been seen as something that is damaging to women. Women expressing their sexuality was seen as bad, not because female sexuality was bad, but because it was seen as them damaging themselves by letting male sexuality corrupt them. In the …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 01:49 PM
5

I don't know if this is so much a feminist thing as a common decency thing. Don't bother a girl if your intentions are simply sex. That's just rude. Wait, why not? You just told me this: "...men HAVE sexual freedom and expression (i.e sleep with all the girls you want, but if you are a female and like sex, you're a slut) women are still fighting to be seen as sexual beings with wants and needs..." And yet you say that men are rude precisely for treating women as sexual beings. If it is okay to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 09:28 AM
1

Huh?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/15 08:04 AM
2

First of all, women on average are shorter than men. So it would be expected that women date men who are taller than them on average. This makes no sense. On average this may be true, but since it is just an average it means we should still expect to find women with shorter men, which we don't. It is very much a rarity to find, and when we do find it there is usually a reason that makes sense such as the guy is wealthy and with status. I don't know if this is true or not, because the study didn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 10:34 PM
1

Maybe I did. I was responding to this: no sex differences in these preferences shown in actual dating behavior. There were also no sex differences in the correlation between preference and actual dating behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 10:00 PM
3

I do understand the theories, however I do lean towards being a more liberal feminist and surround myself with like-minded women so I guess myself and my comments are quite bias. My problem is that you are acting like you and your liberal beliefs are the only ones that exist. Look at the OP. The message has been so pervasive and powerful it has even apparently affected lesbian women. men HAVE sexual freedom and expression (i.e sleep with all the girls you want, but if you are a female and like s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:29 PM
1

You forgot to point out how many "fat slob" women seem to have no trouble finding boyfriends. According to his logic this means men don't care about how women look.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:11 PM
1

Meanwhile, take a step outside and look at the amazing hunks, not, walking around with their girlfriends. You see plenty of women that certainly aren't gorgeous getting plenty of boyfriends, I don't know if you noticed that. I guess we would have to conclude men don't care what women look like either based on this logic right?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:10 PM
2

Well, compared to men women don't care that much about looks. That is why you see women with men shorter than they are everywhere! Oh wait, you don't. Well I guess that is why you see very attractive women with unattractive men with no status or money to explain it, everywhere! Oh wait... you don't either.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:09 PM
1

If you can't find the will or ability to change your body, the idea that society can change to accept your body is going to be an attractive prospect. You get a doublethink with a lot of women where they can talk about they dont care they are overweight, they even like being overweight, or that big is beautiful yadda yadda yadda. On the other hand they will often be trying "diets" that never work, they will complain about how they wish were skinny, or when a diet does start to work and they lose…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:07 PM
2

And yet how often do you see women with men that are shorter than they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:05 PM
2

If you're 50, female, alone and WANT to be with someone you're definitely going to have to change. Not really. Women don't have to change unless they want a higher status male. The pool of men that will want you as a woman is always higher than the pool of women that want you as a man. To know this is true simply take a look at amateur porn and you will find plenty of old overweight women. How much does this happen with men? It doesn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:04 PM
2

Sorry I meant "interest" group. Auto correct fail. If feminism isn't for women or about women's interests why is it gendered female? In the past the answer I've got was always that women have it worse than men, which you claim not to believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 07:24 PM
1

Then all you are saying is feminism is a special internet (edit: *interest) group for women and the feminists claiming it is about equality are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 07:15 PM
1

Lol what? No, YOU could have said that. Your interpretation made no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 07:13 PM
1

Feminism solves a significant barrier where you would be seen as an inferior creature if you happen to be female. That's all. You could argue that means women had worse lives So once again.... do you now accept that it is false that "neither gender has it harder" than the other? What need is there for feminism if women have it no harder than men do?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:53 PM
1

You just told me you were being pedantic, yes, you were trolling.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:44 PM
1

So you knew you were being intentionally difficult. Some call that trolling. Still, at least it is nice to know you aren't quite as stupid as you sounded.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:37 PM
1

Women are and have been seen as inferior to men. If women are seen as inferior to men, that is why we need feminism Men have it no better or worse than women. You don't see anything contradictory about holding all those beliefs in your head at the same time?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:36 PM
1

The person you replied to was talking about people being angry, specifically, feminists being angry. Do feminists not get angry?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:29 PM
1

What about this are you not getting? How do you know something "isn't" feminist anger, if you can't explain what feminist anger would look like?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:49 PM
3

Generalizations: don't make them. Thercus evidence of women being seen that way. If you really live cages, great They both suck, because we are not cages, we are the hunans stuck inside if them. Some people want to get the fuck out of their cages. But some cages are worse than others, as you just described with your analogy. It sucks to lose your freedoms, but I'd sure prefer to be under house arrest in a comfy apartment than stuck inside a violent Malaysian prison cell. If you don't like the co…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:43 PM
2

Once again you're being incomprehensible. If you want to tell me something isn't a duck, then you must be able to define what a duck is. If you don't know, then how can anyone tell the difference?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:37 PM
2

If women are in a gilded cage and they are seen "as" their cage, then it means we will desire and protect the woman. Why would we think the gold cage is inferior when we know this is the opposite of how we see things like gold? You said the spiked cage could keep out predators, but that is just the utility of the cage, whereas the gilded cage is desired and protected just for existing. Secondly, your claim was that neither women or men have it worse than each other. Yet you said that women are s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:34 PM
4

I strongly suspect you don't really know what feminist theory actually consists of, and that you are blocking out what feminists actually say. What do you think the "male gaze" is? Why is it bad that men like to look at sexualised women in porn, games or movies? Why is it bad that some men will pay for sex with prostitutes? Obviously there are "sex negative" and "sex positive" feminists, which have differing views on the above. I would say the "sex positive" feminists still largely promote the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:24 PM
3

Strange analogy considering your argument. I'd rather be in a cage covered in gold than a cage covered in spikes. I'm not sure in what context it is ever better to be in the spiked cage. You just told me that women are considered "not exactly people and sometimes property", yet you also said that women don't have it worse than men. Can't you make up your mind?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:18 PM
2

Do you just not understand the question? Or are you pretending not to on purpose?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:14 PM
3

What you are explaining is how you personally feel. You are telling me I shouldn't feel the way I do because the beliefs you personally have about men shouldn't justify it. The problem is that you are blocking out what all these feminists say as if they don't exist, and as if your personal feelings and beliefs are the same as all the other feminists.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:11 PM
4

You keep talking about harassment. I'm not. As I said feminist rhetoric about objectification is not restricted merely to harassment. It is about what men think not what men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:05 PM
5

Except feminists don't restrict their rhetoric about objectification merely to harassment. It is really a traditionalist idea where male sexuality is considered harmful and dangerous. Feminism has not challenged this idea, in fact they have doubled down on it by trying to justify this deeply held feeling in other ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:54 PM
1

If you can tell what isn't feminist anger, then you must know what is feminist anger. Therefore I am asking you what you would define as feminist anger, so we can know the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:53 PM
4

So then, you do believe that women have it harder than men. I'm glad we have cleared this up.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:52 PM
6

You tell me, you're defending feminism. What is the justification for feminism if feminists don't believe women have it harder?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:27 PM
2

You were the one that talked about feminist anger. What would you define as feminist anger? You must know since you said it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:25 PM
8

If women don't have it harder than men, what reason is there for feminism? Address the question this time.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:00 PM
5

No, based on your own definition and actual history.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:59 PM
5

This answer makes no sense. What would you define as feminist anger if is not exemplified in protests like this?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:58 PM
5

If women don't have it harder than men, what reason is there for feminism?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:58 PM
6

Well, it's not. So... what is it then?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:03 PM
2

Are you seriously saying shooting yourself in the head is as severe a method to kill yourself as trying to hang yourself? If I wanted to get someone's attention shooting myself in the head seems like rather a lot more stupid compared to hanging. One is rather instant and final, and you really have to mess it up to fail.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:03 PM
5

Neither gender has it the hardest. Well then, bye bye feminism!
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:01 PM
4

And parasuicide is not suicide or even attempted suicide at all. Literally it is what we call the behaviour of people we have already have determined do not want to die and have only done it for attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:01 PM
3

Patriarchy: a system-wide belief that women are not actually people but shitty semi people and possibly objects So basically it exists virtually nowhere, not even in the time and place suffragettes were campaigning for votes for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:58 PM
3

Not what feminism is so the parody only does it for people from the manosphere who believe in a characature version of feminism. It isn't really a caricature when you see feminists being against a gender disparity because it is a disparity, but only when it seems to negatively effect women. Even if a person called themselves a feminist and said that about a wage gap, the wage gap is more or less a trope at this point. What are you saying? That feminists don't still go on about the wage gap?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:56 PM
3

I would say it has. I feel like I am meant to be ashamed if I am attracted to women, with feminists constant shrieking about objectification and that if you are attracted to a woman you are objectifying them, dehumanizing them and think they might as well be a piece of furniture. Everyone actually knows this isn't true, even the feminists that say this, since we "objectivity" people all the time, and Im sure they have been attracted to others. All the things they say about slut shaming and how f…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:50 PM
7

Maybe Im still confused as to what TRP says but I'm not sure what specifically makes these "feminist" relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:46 PM
2

I'm not RP. However I can give you my perspective as simply as possible. I think for many men they would love one stable long term relationship however the quality of the relationship tends to go downhill in the sense that they feel they have more responsibilities such as spending more money on her, yet she is less attracted to him sexually. ie. She is less likely to to be into freaky shit the longer he is with her. He also spends more time maintaining this relationship, while has less time to h…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 07:23 PM
4

Well it is implied isn't it? She didn't literally say "I am a woman don't be mean" either, but she did try to play the "I'm just a poor innocent little girl I didn't know what I did wrong, -flirt-" card and no one was buying it. I don't see why that isn't "pussy pass" sought, and "pussy pass" denied.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/03/15 01:45 PM
8

She's using it, flirting like an innocent young teenager in order to try to get her out of trouble
/r/PussyPassDenied02/03/15 11:38 AM
42

To be fair she was acting like a flirting teenager trying to get out of trouble. I'm sorwy mwister I'm just an iwnocent wittle girl!
/r/PussyPassDenied02/03/15 11:36 AM
4

In the UK women cannot legally rape. She is correct.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 01:05 AM
3

It depends on the details of either case that should determine which is worse. It's pretty clear that it's possible being falsely accused can be far far worse than being raped.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 11:15 AM
1

semantics. in this sentence, you do not specify to whom the sexual services are being provided, just that women feel it's worthless This is so desperate. I clearly talked about women since I said "women" aren't prepared to pay for it. What you are doing is being pedantic. If, as I said in the last reply you, you just wanted to clarify that this doesn't apply if you want to be a gay prostitute and a man can decide to earn money if they want to sell sex to other men (albeit at a highly reduced rat…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 06:45 PM
1

Ok, it's clear that you are not going to actually engage in a discussion about the merits of recognizing the existence of smaller demographics. What I said was that it was not a viable option to earn money for men to sell sex to women. That was not false, yet you thought it was so crazy you had to ask me if what i said was sarcasm. If what i said would be okay if it were sarcasm, this would mean it actually would be a viable option and women definitely do not actually think male sexuality is wor…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 06:17 PM
1

You keep ignoring the question, Here it is again: You said earlier that "Meninist is a pretty clear word, no one makes any mistake about what the subject matter is" . How does it make it clear that the subject matter is about mocking feminists links with marxism? Other than you, where are all the people that say that the use of "meninist" is a satirical reference to feminism's links with marxist ideology?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 06:05 PM
1

Lol. You said it because you were reaching for some excuse to make it make not utterly stupid when I challenged you on it. If people are saying "meninist" and not saying it is satire of feminism's links with marxist ideology, then it clearly is what I said it is. For something to be satire its got to be clearly satire. Everyone here that is defending it seems to think its a legitimate word to describe an MRA with not a hint of sarcasm. You said earlier that "Meninist is a pretty clear word, no o…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 05:30 PM
1

I know words can have multiple meanings. I see you have completely ignored the rest of my reply because apparently you'd rather act like the fact that words can have multiple meanings somehow makes a difference. I'll ask you again, where is anyone using "meninist" say its satire of feminism's links with marxist ideology? Because it's a dumb idea to try and satirise feminism this way and its not obvious, you'd have to make that clear. Where are people doing that?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 05:26 PM
1

You haven't answered my question... It can't be a serious word you want MRA's to describe themselves with while also being a satire of feminists. I get the idea of calling myself a masculinist, but only in order to say to people claiming I'm not about equality because i have "male" in the name that, "yes I realise that, I wasn't being serious, and you just demonstrated why feminism is not about equality." Of course all this is your ad hoc rationalization and doesn't actually apply, since i haven…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 05:21 PM
1

No, it can't be both satire and serious at the same time. If you don't see see a problem with being associated with Lenin, then it isn't satire. Satire would be saying it is a problem, and I am mocking you (feminists) by highlighting the marxist roots of your ideology. It can't be this and also be something you seriously want to be associated with. So in what sense is Lenin something that you think the mens right movement should be associated with? Feminists get a whole heap of shit from people …
/r/MensRights07/02/15 05:00 PM
-1

The heart of your argument boils down to insulting people and that you would rather use another word which is not catchy, does not have the sly play on Leninism (which is a widely disparaged worldview - as modern feminism should be), and rolls off the tounge clumsily as all hell. And again, masculism - the opposite of feminism - is not what we want. We aren't looking for the same hate-filled philosophy with roles reversed, we are looking to point out how hate filled and ridiculous feminism has b…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 04:47 PM
-1

Meninist is still a play on Leninist. The word "masclulinist" already exists, and was a play on "feminist" not "leninist". We don't want the literal opposite, do we? MRA isn't looking to be violent or denigrate one sex like modern feminism does. We aren't looking for an exact duplicate of modern, dispicable feminism with simply the roles reversed. We are looking for a true equality movement. There is no reason to call yourself a meninist. It is linguistically retarded. It says nothing about a pe…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 04:26 PM
1

I was merely trying to clear up your reading-way-too-deeply-between-the-lines of my comment that male sex workers exist thus it is not accurate to say that men cannot sell sex/don't get the option to sell sex So we agree? Then why ask if I was being sarcastic? Is it correct that women see male sexuality as worthless? Yes, it is. If we agree this nullifies your reply. Which is what you originally said, perhaps you meant to specify that you were referring only to the scenario of men selling it to …
/r/MensRights07/02/15 04:15 PM
-1

It's also a play on Leninist. Masclulinist is a real word and already existed. Really, you're only problem is the way it sounds? Masclunist sounds way more clumsy to me Why? Its literally the exact opposite of feminism. The opposite of femininity is masculinity. The opposite of woman is man. The literal opposite of feminism would be masclunism. If anyone called themselves a womanist, the opposite would be menist. The opposite of feminism is not meninist. Meninist is a pretty clear word, no one m…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:58 PM
1

I said men don't get the option to sell sex to women, and they don't. Women feel its worthless, and it certainly is or this wouldn't be true. You claimed that there are male sex workers that "serve women". I can probably sell my shit in bags online and eventually some sick fuck will pay for it, but that doesn't mean my shit in bags is really worth anything.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:26 PM
0

Yes I see that people think its somehow cleverly mocking feminists, I just can't understand why they think its smart. All the reasons I've seen can be applied to calling yourself a "mascliunist". And it makes sense because then you can say "well I'm for equality" and they will say "well why call yourself a masclulinist, doesn't that mean you favour men over women?" And then you ask them if they are saying that feminism must also favor women. Calling yourself a meninist makes you sound uneducated…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:22 PM
1

And they willl laugh at the term "MRA" as well. But at least it doesn't sound stupid on such a level. "Masclulinist" is a legitimate coumter to "feminist". Its a word that makes sense. Meninist just sounds like people making fun of MRA's. It makes zero sense to call yourself that. As I said, feminists do not call themselves womaninists, or even womanists. Calling yourself a meninist makes you sound stupid. Call yourself an MRA or a masclulinist and make your point, don't give them more reasons t…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:18 PM
6

I see you misunderstood me. I meant, why is the ADL getting involved with Anita Sarkeesian? Her "work" has got nothing to do with Jewish people or Israel.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:15 PM
4

Yea ok, how about you go do some research on a website like AdultWork.com and tell me again how women are prepared to pay for male sexuality like men are prepared to pay for female sexuality. Just a heads up... Every single time you see feedback for "male escorts" it will either be as a gay male (which still earn substantially less than women do) or the "male escort" will be receiving feedback from female escorts they have paid to see. Women are not paying men to have sex with them. There are a …
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:08 PM
3

Tbh I think it's got to the point where it's just trolling spam and for that reason I approve the deletions of MH101's posts
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:27 AM
2

Oh no you di'nt!!! :P
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:23 AM
6

And men don't get the option to sell sex since women feel it's worthless.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:22 AM
4

Lol let me guess, manhood101 again?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:20 AM
4

What the hell does this have do to with the ADL?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:19 AM
0

How does making up a stupid word like "meninist" like you don't understand that the opposite of female is male, going to help? Even if feminists called themselves womanists then it doesn't explain why you changed it to menINist, it would need to be menist.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:14 AM
0

I get that, but the opposite of female is male, not men. So the opposite of feminist is mascluinist, not meninist. No one calls themselves a womaninist.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:12 AM
-1

How does it do that? I want to understand the thought process here. What are you satirising? It's feminist not womaninist. How does it make you sound anything but uneducated?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:10 AM
-1

What's right with it? How does does it do any of that? It just makes you sound uneducated. It sounds like someone made it up to make fun of MRA's. "Oh trololol wat are u, a "meninist?" . If you wanted a comparative word then call yourself a mascluinist, that at least makes sense. It's feminist not womaninist. If the word was womaninist then meninist wouldn't sound so damn stupid.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:07 AM
-3

Its dumb, really dumb, and should not be encouraged around here.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:59 AM
-2

"Meninist" makes you sound uneducated. Its not womaninist, its feminist. It would be masclulism or masclunist for it to be the counterpart. At least if you had "mascluinist" or "mens rights" on a shirt you wouldnt so immediately look stupid. Im not sure how this makes you look more approachable, you'll get the same reaction only worse, because people can more justifiably mock you. No question the hate you received is interesting especially the death threat(?) but calling it "meninist" is still s…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:56 AM
-2

The #Meninist thing is gaining momentum along with the ignorant backlash. As an MRA I don't understand this Meninist thing. Why is this being defended as making sense here?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:55 AM
0

Yup I agree. I meant Meninist when I wrote it btw. Im glad you see its stupid. :)
/r/MensRights07/02/15 01:53 AM
0

Oh god is "menist" a serious thing? Please dont, please. It would be masclulinist if you really want to have comparable name. It's feminism not womanism. It makes you look uneducated.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 10:50 PM
1

I haven't see any details referring to what I was talking about. Maybe you could quote it
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:26 AM
1

I'm not sure I see how it answers it. It groups all the "made to penetrate" under one heading so you can't possibly know what that consists of.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:26 PM
1

You're correct though we still are in quite virgin (no pun intended) territory here. Feminists only care about being as vague as possible in order to get as many female victims as they can for their hyterical statistics. But this was never a good idea. I suspect male rapists probably do use more physical force than women do, and I think the biggest reason I say that is based purely on biology. The fact is while men can get an erection when he doesn't want one you can rape a woman whether she is …
/r/MensRights02/02/15 01:44 PM
1

Wish you'd captured the whole page properly but yea I have debated with feminists on such double standards and it amazing how they can justify over and over having double standards so shamelessly while denying that they do. I will be so happy if I ever meet a feminist that admits it's their feelings not logic that causes them to think it's worse when things happen to women. Like if someone like Anita Sarkessian didn't try and make out that her opinion was anything more than her personal feelings…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 01:32 PM
1

Not sure why it's appropriate for funny?
/r/MensRights02/02/15 01:27 PM
1

Yea things like this is the radical fringe, oh wait, it isn't...
/r/MensRights02/02/15 01:26 PM
3

Ha of course you know that's not what they are advocating
/r/MensRights02/02/15 01:23 PM
1

Denied the company? That's not the problem, it is that they are being accused of being so likely to rape the girls should stay home
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:16 AM
1

But... Your initial response to me relied on it being irrational. I was replying to a person that is saying we should not have any contact with women, not even as friends. He says he is just weighing risks, but if that's the case then he would be know that the need to break all contact with all women is unnecessary since the risks don't justify that. You're bouncing around all over the place, I don't get it.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:56 PM
1

So what does this have to do with what I wrote? Are you defending being as irrational as they are?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:30 PM
0

I know that? What does this have to do with what I wrote? I'm not sure you are having the same conversation as me.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:19 PM
1

I'm sorry but based on that picture she's at least average, arguably above average. If you're going to make the claim that she's just resentful because she isn't pretty enough it just doesn't work here. This is Andrea Dworkin. See the difference? I also think its confirmation bias. There's plenty of good looking feminists and ugly feminists. There's also stereotypically "lesbian" or less than average looking women that support the MRM. There are also pretty looking women that support the MRM. Th…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:17 PM
0

... I don't get your point? I also don't think rape culture exists, so your sentence is confusing even though you put "" around "rape culture".
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:14 PM
1

Heh. He did just say he was.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:00 PM
1

No they don't not to mention that women tend to be more sneaky when murdering their partners.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:56 PM
1

I don't get it. She's quite pretty she just has her eyes closed.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:51 PM
2

Lol it's funny how the one talked about how shocked she is that a community that is normally so adamant about body positivity can be so disgusting here. Lady, it's obvious isn't it? Because this person isn't female so it's okay to laugh at him.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:49 PM
6

They said "harrassment" so it's surprising based on what they define as harrassment and how often they say women are harassed all day every day that they couldn't find more than half. 1 in 2 is actually very low based on their own argument. The low end should be at least 80%.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:42 PM
5

Lol she wouldn't put it like that. Hilary somehow managed to say what she said in a speech and wasn't directly challenged on it.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:39 PM
8

If you were weighing risk then you'd see the likelihood this would happen is not to be that concerned about. The fact that it's legally possible and does happen is the problem.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:38 PM
1

I know what you mean. And they will mock those people that think it's real, when they bring that on themselves. Hahaha we were only joking idiots, but seriously though men do actually need to be taught what rape is and not to rape.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 02:35 PM
4

If you really want to kill women how incompetent do you have to be to fail so hard at it? It's like he actively tried to fail.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 07:08 PM
1

Not quite it's a parody creates BY feminists that are mocking the idea that women should be given tips for avoiding rape. It's part of the "teach men not to rape don't teach women how to avoid rape" crowd. Only because they actually do believe men should and need to be taught what rape is and not to do it, rather takes something away from the "joke".
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:57 PM
1

It is an attempt at a joke but it's a joke by people that don't understand what they are talking about. They really do believe men can and should be taught what rape is and not to do it.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:53 PM
1

I admit I am being a little difficult with you and you've been quite good about it :). I just wondered if the feeling that you should give these people more chances was more about the subject matter rather than this general idea you say you have. I wanted you to consider that maybe you are more likely to be tolerant of sexism against men than you would be of an equivalent form of racism, because sexism against men just "feels" like it isn't as big a deal.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:04 PM
1

In any case its ideologies, but the main point is dealing with the logic used.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 04:53 PM
1

Now I don't really understand why you took bit you've quoted as logic for never drawing a line, I've already said previously that there are some people we just cannot help. Only because the part I quoted can be applied to ISIS terrorists as well, which to me undermines the logic generally speaking if you arent willing to go that far.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 02:15 PM
1

All I know is that we don't hate people by default, we hate people through education and through actions against us and those close to us, in my opinion at least. With this logic then we shouldn't draw the line even with ISIS terrorist murderers
/r/MensRights17/01/15 09:04 PM
1

It just seems to me that there is no reason to ever think anyone is just a hateful bigot. They might change their minds at some point, its certainly happened before, but that wouldn't stop them being a hateful bigot at the time. How much credit will you give someone before you decide its okay to give them the middle finger? You must draw your line somewhere surely.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 04:24 PM
1

It depends how different they happen to be and how much I see them post on my fb
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:54 PM
1

I would if they said something as disgusting as this
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:53 PM
4

Let's imagine a white guy stabs a black guy several times, he survives and gets to a hospital where the white guy finds him and stabs him again. If somone posts this to FB saying "hahahahahahaha" what should we think of that person?
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:49 PM
3

Slut shaming!!! /s
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:47 PM
1

Until most of society looks at attitudes like this as they do with the KKK or Nazism they will continue to think these attitudes are ok. What's amazing is they need the majority of society to tell them it's wrong before they will get it
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:46 PM
2

Jesus. The woman is psychotically disgusting with the story like out of a damn horror movie and it's considered funny. I can laugh at a horror movie with someone going around murdering teenagers in gruesome ways but it wouldnt be funny in real life. Its like these people don't see him as a real person. I would not stay friends with someone that acted like this person did. The thing is also that if this were a man talking about a female victim it would be held up as an example of how bad men are.…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:39 PM
2

I feel bad for giving such a short response to such a long thoughtful reply, but I think if there is a legitimate health reason that is different. However most people don't "need" to eat meat and we can quite easily supplement the small amount of what they would miss. We certainly do not need to eat anywhere near the amounts we commonly do for those nutrients anyway. Out of interest what specifically is it about meat that is necessary for the health conditions you refer to?
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:36 PM
0

Or I have better standards. We could go back and forth like this or you could explain why you think she has some interesting content
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:31 PM
2

You must have a very very broad view of what constitutes interesting
/r/MensRights15/01/15 05:36 AM
1

I eat meat, and you're absolutely right that it's insanely stupid to criticise capitalism while promoting veganism since capitalism enables that choice. However I have never bought any of the pro-meat arguments in a wealthy western world. As I said I eat meat, but the arguments typically used to defend meat eating are at best illogical but more often than not tends to be absurdly stupid. Example of absurdly stupid: The idea that killing animals is okay because we also have to kill plants. Ie. Th…
/r/MensRights14/01/15 08:07 PM
3

Another good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doT2FvAlmoU
/r/MensRights10/01/15 02:57 AM
5

Some men look better bald than others.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 01:11 AM
1

Fuck... what a scary bitch.... People don't expect this from someone that seems "sweet" like at the start. They need to take her kids away, seriously.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 06:03 PM
1

You're assuming every reason is purely social. Not at all, you keep trying to prove something I already agree with. But just because we might have a biological propensity to certain attitudes/behaviors doesnt mean we should act on them or at the very least be aware of them. You're posting in mens rights, and here we argue a lot about the harms feminism has caused and is causing, but traditionalism is the real root problem. It wasn't feminism that directed us to put more value on female life than…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 05:23 PM
8

Threats that mods said were false and sent by users to themselves
/r/MensRights09/01/15 03:03 AM
1

No, it doesn't and there is there is no paradox, because the trial does not prove innocence. You aren't listening. I am not saying the trial proves innocence. I am saying legally you are "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore anything other than a guilty verdict means legally speaking you are still innocent. As I've explained this every reply to you I can't see any point going further with this if you cant get this fundamental point. And this btw... People like you are what give legitimacy to…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 12:04 AM
0

This assumes all possible relevant evidence is available. A not guilty verdict can literally be the same as "no comment". Accused of a crime with no evidence at all? Not guilty. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. A guilty verdict, however, is at least supposed to be mean that there was enough evidence to prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with possible error contained in that reasonable doubt. I guess I have to ask you then since you keep disagreeing with it. …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 10:53 PM
2

Its a great example of how most feminists act. The host and the woman on the left were badly behaved because they were emotional and not listening to the facts. They feel its true, therefore everyone saying it isn't must be wrong.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 10:06 PM
1

Did I say that no evidence can prove a false accusation? No I did not. If the evidence is there to prove a false accusation, then it should be charged. I didn't say you did. I said based on what you said the only way we can say an allegation is false is if that person was tried for making a false allegation and found guilty. Those are difficult crimes to prosecute. The ones we know about are because the evidence happened to be so overwhelming. All I said was a not guilty verdict is not proof of …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 10:05 PM
1

No you are not innocent from a legal perspective. You are not guilty. There is a huge difference. Being not guilty can simply mean the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove guilt If they have not proved guilt, and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, then how are you not considered innocent legally? Unless you are saying this concept of "innocence until proven guilty" doesn't really exist in law. It does not mean, nor does it rule out the possibility, that the person was lying. Yes, and …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 08:51 PM
1

You're correct that it is probably too preemptive to say this particular allegation is "false". I just think most people aren't sure how to treat these things and on examination their logic doesn't usually hold up. Those who hold up 'innocent until proven guilty' as some kind of absolute included. I'm glad you seem to understand what I am trying to say.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 08:44 PM
1

Lets say someone accuses you of rape. You go to court and are found not guilty. Even here you'd have to say we can't say it was a false accusation against you. If we can say it was based on evidence presented in court, then remember the court won't be ruling on whether its a false accusation, only on if the prosecution have met the burden of proof to find the person guilty. What you are telling me is no matter the evidence, even evidence presented in court that she is lying which causes them to …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 07:35 PM
3

I wonder if this gave Andrews more freedom to speak than a male would have. Even so, she was interrupted and talked over. Oh I'm sure it did, because then they can't say that she just wants to keep her male privilege yadda yadda yadda. Its one less way they could hand wave everything she was saying, which they still did anyway. I loved how Kate kept telling them that women are actually paid MORE than men in the same demographics, and they just kept saying "no no no that's not true". All they can…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 07:27 PM
1

Logically our opinion should be tentative. But legally, if the charges are dropped, he is innocent. This is where "innocent until proven guilty" starts to eat itself with contradictions. If you were found "not guilty" in court, would it be now correct to call the accusations false?
/r/MensRights07/01/15 05:24 PM
1

If someone makes an accusation against you, but then later the charges are retracted or dropped, then from a legal perspective you are still innocent of the charges. If you are innocent, then what must we logically see the accusations as? False. Even if you are convicted you aren't necessarily guilty, and if you are found not guilty it doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Calling charges being dropped false in one sense is completely fair, and in another sense technically inaccurate. It is…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 05:20 PM
2

People have a hard time understanding what innocent until proven guilty means.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:27 PM
1

If you are treated as if you are innocent, then what must we logically see the accusations as? Because if they are not false, then you are guilty. You see the problem yet?
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:11 PM
2

Exactly?
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:10 PM
3

Starts off slow but really gets going when Kate Andrews starts talking about the truth of the statistics. Ie. Women earn MORE than men do, and women are NOT being paid less for the same job. I just wish she nipped it immediately in the bud to start with when the host said it was a fact that women were paid less than men. The mental gymnastics of these people never cease to amaze me.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:09 PM
1

god damn stupid reddit, I put it there. I will resubmit
/r/MensRights07/01/15 04:05 PM
1

Taking my comment as sarcastic does denote a very particular meaning and that meaning is a claim of what women are like. This is horribly incomprehensible I hope you know that. I think the above text of this comment gives good reason for me to believe that I know what was being said to me. What are you talking about? You aren't making sense. You said women arent like that, but what aren't they like? All you had to go on was someone wondering if the guy actually believes women have lowered their …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:44 PM
1

It seems to me people that say this have cognitive bias where much like those who believe in psychics, forget the things that don't fit what they'd like the world to be and remember and inflate all the things they think does. You even say "most of them aren't like that". Aren't like what? No one said what women were like, but you're already telling us they aren't like it. You're already assuming they are wrong about women before even knowing what it is you are disagreeing with. That is how I can…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:20 PM
1

And I refer you to my question you find difficult to answer for some reason! As I said in my other post, if the case is dropped due to lack of evidence we should treat all parties as innocent. How can they all be innocent, logically? Just think about it.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:17 PM
1

How does your answer address what i wrote? You just repeated what yelirbear wrote in his initial comment.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:15 PM
0

I thought so. I always also being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 02:42 PM
1

No shitlord! Obviously if he closed his legs there might be at least 2 inches women could claw back from the grips of patriarchal oppression!
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:48 PM
1

No no no you see the patriarchy is about making women work more than men and have to carry about bags and shit. So obviously you can't blame them for putting their poor weary feet up and it's our fault they have a hand bag don't you know
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:46 PM
1

Ha saved. A nice one to throw in the face of anyone making this argument.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:44 PM
1

I like the comment from the woman that said they are looking at it because it's disgusting, eww penis' are gross... Etc. Funny thing is she may well be correct, male sexuality isn't just held in low regard it's considered disgusting most of the time. But it's women that need to have Vagina days where they can feel more confident in how their body looks of course.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:42 PM
2

I don't suppose you have any sources for that? I haven't done a lot of research into this side and don't have any other than remembering what people say
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:40 PM
-1

Hahaha. Good sarcasm m8
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:37 PM
0

You have to be more socially dominant and earn more money, no surprise there then. Beautiful women will fuck you even if you're a frail old man in a wheel chair if you have enough money. I don't think anyone said short men couldn't get taller women, just that they have to work a lot harder to keep her attention than he would if he was taller. Why would you want to scour the earth for women willing to date down (literally) and then have to work harder? Might as well start with girls shorter and t…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:33 PM
1

I cannot wait until oculus rift is perfected and we can get some really quality VR porn. Give it another 10 years maybe... Makes me wish I was born a few decades later haha
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:32 PM
0

I laughed but I also didn't get it
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:30 PM
3

I was like "WTF", then I saw the URL "Indian" and it suddenly made sense.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 01:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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