TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tothecatmobile Archive

View 0 posts and 1,936 comments by tothecatmobile 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,936 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
19

How is this PPD?
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/25 09:49 AM
-1

it would be better if it was called out correctly. Well according to the article, what she did wasn't rape, it was aggrevated sexual assault.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/07/24 10:48 PM
-29

Articles like this don't really disprove or debunk anything, if anything they are still evidence that the legal system don't look at men and women equally. In cases like this you can easily see the argument that the justice system infantilizes women and removes their agency. ("Its not really their fault", "it's clearly the man who did this" etc). And while it's easy to see how this is a benefit to women, not all women go through the justice system. For most women, being infantilized or removed o…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/23 08:00 AM
-74

In half of Europe those women soccer teams can't stop crying because they don't have as much money as Ronaldo. No they're not. Downvoted, but I bet no one can give me proof of me being wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/06/23 09:55 AM
-2

Not all of them are former, some are still current professionals. This isn't pussypassdenied, it was a bit of a laugh in a friendly tournament.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/06/23 09:53 AM
3

Percussive maintenance.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/04/23 01:50 PM
16

Pretty much everyone only spends half their sentence in prison, that's how it works in the UK, half in prison, half on licence.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/03/23 05:49 PM
2

OP wants to find people who will wank him off for getting a woman fired because she didn't assume he was lying to his dates. I imagine he'll continue posting this until he finds a subreddit that will.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/23 11:58 AM
-3

It's also an Emirate, but indeed. A small slip up there.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/23 11:48 AM
-6

She's stupid for breaking drug laws in a country like Dubai UAE, but these sort of drugs laws are bullshit. Everyone sucks here.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/23 10:21 AM
8

They're not taking the child away from the mother, they're telling her to go back to Belgium where the courts there can sort out custody.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/12/22 11:32 AM
1

Where does she say anything about no one wanting to date her? She responds to someone's insult, with another insult. Then calls a fat joke unfunny.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/11/22 06:48 PM
0

She's being condensending because men have a will of their own and choose not to date her What? Where has she done this?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/11/22 06:21 PM
5

£144m was her total wealth at the time. So the divorce was splitting that £144m. No one actually knows what the split actually was, because they both wanted to keep it private.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/22 02:35 PM
-105

The comments on it are them saying that yes, women should pay child support. This was clearly a troll, meant for a screenshot.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/09/22 07:36 AM
-5

Well if a man gave a woman a roofie and then robbed her, it would also be robbery wouldn't it?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/09/22 11:38 PM
-10

She didn't assault them did she? She robbed them.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/09/22 11:16 PM
-2

That's why we invented nukes and drones.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/22 03:18 PM
23

Because woman bad.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/22 03:17 PM
3

How is is it? It's still a crime, it just isn't called statutory rape.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/07/22 06:33 AM
9

Statutory rape in the UK is only if the child is 13 or younger. The crime, when the child is 14-15 is sexual activity with a child.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/22 07:52 PM
7

Also the UK statutory rape can only occur if the child is younger than 13. 14 or above the crime is sexual activity with a child. So even in cases of male teachers, newspapers will use "had sex with" rather than "raped" if the child is 14 or older.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/22 07:51 PM
2

On licence is the UK equivalent of probation.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:55 PM
1

In articles about it she tells people not to take it seriously and that it's supposed to be humour.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/22 11:55 AM
4

A lot of wooshes going on here. Guys, this wasn't a serious product design, it was a joke.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/22 11:00 AM
3

Since when did national = government?
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/22 10:58 AM
7

Zambia is the only country with 1 day a month menstrual leave.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/05/22 12:03 AM
3

It wasn't the woman he slept with who tried to blackmail him.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/22 03:27 PM
36

I'm pretty sure it wasn't her who attempted to blackmail him, it was someone else who got a copy of the photo.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/22 11:52 AM
37

She took that like a champ.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/22 04:42 PM
1

Boris likes this.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 02:05 PM
1

She didn't denounce her citizenship, they took it off her. There's an actual process you need to go through to denounce a citizenship. Its not just something you can say and it happens. Yes, even people who leave the UK and fight for the other side in wars didn't have their citizenship automatically removed.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 02:04 PM
0

I love how people totally love the government having these sort of powers now 😂 Protect me daddy Boris from the scary terrorist 😂
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 01:59 PM
1

Or they know how their own citizenship system works.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 01:52 PM
1

I trust Bangladesh to know this more than you. No offence.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 01:43 PM
-1

I'm the one fear mongering when you think the government needs these powers to protect everyone from the evil terrorist? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 12:54 PM
0

I'm guessing you supported mass surveillance too. For your protection.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 12:50 PM
1

Bangladesh has said he isn't entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 12:40 PM
0

I'm not the one ok with government having unilateral power over the people's citizenship without oversight or appeal. You're clearly fine with it, so I only hope your blind trust is never shown to be misplaced.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 12:33 PM
0

The government just needs more powers, then it can protect you from the scary terrorists 😉
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 12:18 PM
0

Who's defending her? If you want countries to have the right to kick out their own citizens, go ahead. More government power over its citizens rights always went well didn't it.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:51 AM
0

So you're OK with countries unilateral decided that citizens aren't allowed to return? I'm sure a government would only ever use that power correctly right? 😉
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:50 AM
1

So then throw her in jail. The government has given themselves the power to do this at their own discretion. And if you're OK with them having this, with no oversight or right to appeal, then you trust the government far more than I.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:45 AM
-3

Being a member of a group is not the same as having a foreign citizenship. The UK does not recognise ISIS as a country, and doesn't recognise any claims to ISIS citizenship. Being against a country making a citizen stateless is not being a weirdo.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:39 AM
-2

Printing a passport doesn't make you a country. You can't have it both ways, if she has ISIS citizenship, then ISIS is a sovereign country recognised by the UK. Which it clearly isn't
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:36 AM
-12

So you think ISIS is a legitimate country?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 11:31 AM
-39

ISIS isn't a county, it has no citizenship to hand out. The UK recognising ISIS citizenship would be a much much bigger story than this one, and would legitimise the group as a state.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 09:28 AM
-43

I wonder who are those 2% who wanted her back. People who don't want the government to have the power to make someone stateless. With no way to appeal.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 09:09 AM
26

You have far more faith in the UK government than most.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/22 09:08 AM
11

Fuck Katie Price A good chance that anyone reading this has.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/01/22 03:53 PM
1

That isn't part of the papers headline.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/22 10:59 PM
2

Yet OP does?
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/22 09:51 PM
7

The article also says nothing about the context of the video. Apart from what had previously been reported.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/22 09:29 PM
6

The article doesn't say what is actually on the video in question.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/22 09:27 PM
-1

You all know this is fake right?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/01/22 04:28 PM
2

She was found guilty of 18 charges, he was found guilty of 34.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/12/21 10:05 AM
4

Unfortunately not in the UK, we have shit sentencing for sexual crimes.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/21 07:52 AM
-1

You think that rape and robbery are comparable?
/r/PussyPassDenied24/11/21 07:19 PM
30

Let's also not compare her to Bill Cosby. What she did was bad sure, but it was nothing compared to what Cosby did.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/11/21 06:54 PM
20

They're just pissed that they're not getting a cut.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/11/21 10:26 PM
3

Daenerys ain't got nothing on her.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/21 01:31 PM
3

You can't really blame a parent for defending their child no matter what, even if they go through major mental gymnastics to do so.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/21 01:29 PM
-5

Pretty much.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/21 07:43 PM
0

You missed Mortdecai then?
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/21 07:43 PM
0

L. O. L.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 02:51 PM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:54 AM
1

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:50 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:48 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:45 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:36 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 09:24 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 07:40 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/21 03:40 AM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 12:07 PM
0

Lol
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 12:04 PM
0

Let me know when the Bible according to YourFavoriteGuy comes out.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 12:00 PM
0

Yawn
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 11:57 AM
0

Coming from someone who's height of wit is calling someone a little girl, and repeating back what's been said to them. Officially bored of you know.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 01:24 AM
0

I really hope that English is your second language champ.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 12:43 AM
0

Wait, do you actually think that "God is genderless" and "God us referred to as masculine" are contradicting statements? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/21 12:19 AM
0

Who cares what the Mormons think 😂 "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God."
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 09:30 PM
0

And boats are referred to as females. What something is referred to means nothing 😂 Just another reminder; "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God."[
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 09:25 PM
0

"God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God."
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 09:11 PM
0

who say God is masculine or male. No they don't. "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God." You must have skipped over the part about not bearing false witness right?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 09:02 PM
0

No, just more than the Church who has spent 2000 years writing it, putting it together, translating it, analysing it, and studying it. What do those losers know right? 😂
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 08:51 PM
0

I'm not the one who claimed to know more about the Bible than the church 🤷🏻‍♂️ I know I know less than they do.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 08:40 PM
0

I wonder who would win in a fight between you and the pope? I think I'd have to give it to ol' Francis.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 08:15 PM
0

Started your cult yet?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 02:54 PM
0

Is there an echo in here?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 11:43 AM
0

Amazing 😂😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 11:35 AM
0

Nice comeback lol
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 11:04 AM
0

I completely forgot who you were for a moment there. And then I remembered you are the guy who said he knew more about the Bible than the church. Lol.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 10:40 AM
2

You've just repeated what I've said. There's no demand from women, and lots of demand from men.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/21 02:41 PM
10

You mean more men chose to buy it. The demand from men is much much more than the demand from women. And markets are driven by demand, not supply. 🤷🏻‍♂️
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/21 01:27 PM
1

This is a troll right? Ok fine, when you starting your new religion, since clearly you know more about the Bible than anyone? 😂
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 12:05 PM
0

Hmm You Vs The Church. I wonder who knows more about God and the Bible I wonder 😂😂😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 11:57 AM
0

Prove I know less than the Church Its the same joke, but it never stops being funny. This is a troll right? It's got to be.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 11:39 AM
0

Prove that you know less about the Bible and God than the church? Jesus fucking christ dude, are you 12 or something?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 11:23 AM
0

Yes, I know more about the Bible than the Church And you call me petulant lol. Don't worry, you'll grow up soon enough, and realise that other people do actually know much more than you do.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 11:12 AM
0

Why don't we hear what the church has to say on God's gender; "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God." Yes, I know more about the Bible than the Church HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 You should write comedy.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 10:52 AM
0

So you do think you know more about the Bible and God than the church then? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 10:26 AM
0

Do you think you know more about God and the Bible than the church? This church; "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: He is God." Or these churches; "The God worshiped by the biblical authors and worshiped in the Church today cannot be regarded as having gender, race, or color."
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 10:01 AM
0

Do you think you know more about God and the Bible than the church?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 08:59 AM
0

The early Church were the people who wrote parts of the Bible 😂😂😂 God is genderless, this is literally stated by the major Churches. Do you think you know more about the Bible then those people?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 08:23 AM
0

Imagine thinking you knew more about the Bible and god than the original Christian Church, and the Church fathers. God has no gender, this is established Christian Theology, regardless of how much you hate the idea.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 08:03 AM
0

Feminist? Lol. This is settled Christian mythology, 2000 years old. I think you need to find yourself a new religion, you clearly don't like Christianity much.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 06:05 AM
0

Lol Jesus, God the son, Holy Wisdom, Divine Sofia. These are all the same, not 4 separate things 1 entity, a third of the trinity. This is basic Sunday school stuff.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/21 12:12 AM
0

Is wisdom in such a Trinity? ...yes. but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. The female personification of Wisdom is part of Jesus, the word of God, preexisting creation. Some churches assign holy wisdom to the Holy spirit, but these are a minority. This is Christianity 101, toddlers learn this stuff.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 05:05 PM
0

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. Hmm, this passage about wisdom seems awfully familiar, Almost sounds like this; The Son is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn over all creation. Hmm, also reminds me of this; but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God 😵😵😵 But wait a minute, God the son is part of God right?…
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 03:56 PM
0

I like the little "..." you put to signify the passing of 6+ chapters, good job trying to be disingenuous 6 passages written about the same thing, their inclusion doesn't change anything. That whole passage is written about Again you are showing your anglocentrism, a noun being feminine is not the same as an individual being feminine. So now you're saying that just because something is called... say "he" doesn't mean its male? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂😂😂😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 03:36 PM
0

So who else's wisdom would the bible be talking about? Lol. Do I really have to sit here and explain the concept of holy wisdom to you? Ok, ill make it even more blunt for you; Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? At the highest point along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; ... The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. God's wisdom is a …
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 03:07 PM
0

However there is no place where God Himself is personified as a woman. There are many places He is referred to as a man and masculine though. Except all the times the Bible talks about God's holy wisdom. Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 02:29 PM
0

Its a bit of a mix. When talking about the holy spirit, both masculine and feminine is used. However there is no confusion when the bible personifies God's wisdom, that is 100% a woman. Obviously a mistake in the bible right?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 09:36 AM
0

So now you're saying that the Bible. Which wasn't originally written in English remember, was wrong when it referred to God as a female... Awkward.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 06:32 AM
0

😂😂😂😂 The Catholic Church are the ones who approved what the Bible said, they are the one body most responsible for what is "right" about the Bible. But ok, ill humour you, which part of the Bible am I saying is wrong? I'm assuming that you think that referring to something as a "he" definitely means it's a man. And that English never refers to something with no gender as he or she. In which case you must think that boats are all girls 😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 06:21 AM
0

Lol. You're really trying hard here aren't you. When did I ever say the Bible was wrong? 😂😂 You don't even know what you're arguing against do you? 😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/21 06:06 AM
0

So are you going to be the one to tell the Catholic Church, and the National Council of Churches that they're wrong? Lol.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 11:35 AM
0

Because they do. 😂😂 All major Christian groups see God as genderless, simply as God.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 11:26 AM
0

Why don't you go start your own religion if you think that every other Christian is wrong 😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 10:56 AM
0

Lol, yes it does. Hebrew is a language that had masculine and feminine nouns that are used depending on the subject. The bible specifically uses the feminine nouns of some words to describe God, and not the masculine equivalent. Specifically, the Holy spirit, or the spirit of God, was always referred to as feminine in Hebrew, not masculine. This is exactly why the church had to decree that God was genderless, to account for these grammatical discrepancies in the bible. Just give it up dude, much…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 10:30 AM
0

And the Hebrew version also refers to God using feminine nouns. Almost as if God is both and neither, just like the church says. You're fucking hilarious dude.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 09:32 AM
0

Did you forget again that the English bibles were just translations, and the original was in Hebrew? 😂😂 In the Hebrew version, God is also referred to using feminine nouns. And the bible is always right isn't it?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 09:28 AM
0

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Imagine thinking you knew more about the Bible and Christianity than the fucking Church.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 09:11 AM
0

I trust the church, and pretty much every major Christian philosophers interpretation of the Bible over yours. Even back in the very early days of the church, the terms "father" and "son" were explicitly stated to be metaphorical, and not a statement of gender. And you're taking a very english-centric view of this. Forgetting that the Bible was written in Hebrew, that is very different language. And in Hebrew God is referred to using both masculine and feminine words. 'Ruach' for example, the He…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 08:20 AM
0

God didn't write the English translations of the Bible. And if you believe that God has a "devine gender" that is male, that puts you in an extreme minority. Pretty much all Christian groups and philosophers consider God to have no gender. To quote the Catholic Church, God "is neither man nor woman: he is God."
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 07:38 AM
0

They refer to anyone committing the crime. Regardless of gender. Because the 'he' in that case is gender neutral. It is being used in the same way we might use 'they' today, to refer to person whos gender is unknown.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 02:48 AM
0

So do you think that these laws didn't apply to women? Lol.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/21 01:18 AM
0

Okay, show me where the law used he to refer to a specific individual who is a woman. https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/10/breaking-down-gender-stereotypes-in-legal-writing/ In legal writing, masculine language has traditionally been used to refer to people regardless of their gender. Examples include the use of masculine pronouns (he/him) and nouns such as chairman.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/07/21 06:30 PM
0

The definitions just go to show that "he" has been used when either the gender isn't know, or as a gender neutral term. Laws that say "he" for example, do not only apply to men. The bible also refers to God using female terms. Deuteronomy 32:18 “You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.” God also refers to themselves as a mother several times in Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 66:13, Psalm 131:2, Luke 15:8-10. And then there's Genesis that says both men and women …
/r/PussyPassDenied03/07/21 05:27 PM
0

Yes. It was. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/he used in a generic sense or when the gender of the person is unspecified https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/he used to refer to a person whose sex is not known: There is even a set of laws in the UK, that set out language that us used in statute, and they say that he is gender neutral when written in laws. The bible was translated into English a long time ago, language has changed a lot since then.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/07/21 03:56 PM
-1

For a long time, 'he' was also gender neutral. It definitely was when the bible was translated into English.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/07/21 03:08 PM
2

NPC 😂😂😂
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/21 08:14 PM
3

Wow.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/21 04:57 PM
2

Nope, my mother remarried, and so changed her name after I was born. I didn't change my name then.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/21 04:16 PM
-14

Does it really? I don't think a couple are any more or less likely to stay together depending on their opinion on marriage.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/21 04:02 PM
1

I have the same surname as my maternal grandparents.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/21 03:58 PM
1

Not every couple gets married. I actually have neither of my parents last names.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/21 03:53 PM
-11

You don't need to be married to be in a two parent household.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/21 03:51 PM
6

And eating the pizza afterwards.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/05/21 12:12 PM
59

Because woman bad hur hur hur.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/05/21 07:25 AM
1

No, not every site should require someone to sign in to view content, adult or otherwise. But even if they did. All you need to do to view the mature content is just click an "I understand" option anyways, no different to not having to sign in. Having to sign in just creates a pointless extra step.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/21 07:04 PM
1

YouTube is in the minority there. Most websites don't require you to sign in.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/21 06:46 PM
3

Like any other website that has mature content on it.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/21 06:41 PM
1

There already is a mature content option.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/21 06:17 PM
0

Because subreddits like this drive up clicks.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/04/21 08:50 AM
76

Kink shaming is my kink.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/04/21 08:48 AM
1

Of all the things that happened, this is definitely one of them.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/21 09:46 AM
5

I'm gonna need a citation that disproved my link to the actual legislation that says otherwise.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:57 PM
11

No it isn't. rape of a child under 13. Sexual activity with a child
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:52 PM
3

Rape of a child under 13 Sexual activity with a child
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:51 PM
10

Statutory rape in the UK is only if the victim is younger than 13. Older than that, and the offence is "sexual activity with a child"
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:50 PM
2

Statutory rape in the UK is only if the victim is 12 or younger.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:33 PM
-3

This also wouldn't be rape even if the genders were swapped. It is sexual activity with a child. Edit: down voted by people who don't know UK law it seems. Statutory rape is only if the victim is younger than 13. If the victim is 13-15 then the statutory offence is sexual activity with a child.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:28 PM
3

It wouldn't. The offence rape doesn't have any references to what age a person can or cannot consent. There is 'rape of a child under 13'. Which wouldn't apply here. And 'sexual activity with a child'. While any sexual activity with someone younger than 16 is always illegal, it isn't always rape. Unless they are younger than 13.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:20 PM
-8

Even if the genders were swapped in the UK this wouldn't be rape. It would be sexual activity with a child.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 02:13 PM
2

Its in the first paragraph.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/04/21 11:07 PM
1

If the law was as bad as some of the laws they have in middle Eastern countries, then my opinion would be the same then too.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 02:36 PM
1

My reaction would be the same if they were men. Just because it's the law of the land there, doesn't mean I can't say its a stupid law.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 01:23 PM
1

Personally I don't really give a shit about nudity. But them I'm European.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 01:06 PM
-2

Who would have thought this sub would agree so much with fundamentalist Islam.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 11:52 AM
1

Nah, Fuck religious legal systems.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 11:50 AM
0

Nice strawman there.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/21 11:48 AM
3

Thanks for the good laugh.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 06:18 PM
5

I'm soooo triggered right now.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 06:10 PM
6

Triggered? Lol. I just think it's hilarious to criticise someone for giving an opinion to your own opinion. But if it makes you feel better, sure. I'm triggered to fuck right now.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 06:07 PM
7

Did the person you reply to claim the world moved on their opinion?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 06:02 PM
6

You say to someone's response to your own opinion.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 05:46 PM
4

But she is remanded, until she actually faces trial. So not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 03:55 PM
7

Generally in news stories they use 'has sex with' regardless of gender, when it countries where the crime they are being accused of isn't called 'rape'. For example; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8434121/Teacher-32-sex-student-17-told-wear-skirt-school-f.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/christian-college-teacher-allegedly-had-sex-with-student-in-school-library-20201104-p56bib.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8590525/Teacher-Gavin-Malcolm-Duncan-sex-student…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 11:26 AM
36

Accused people can generally still do usual activities before they actually have a trial.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 01:53 AM
53

She was awaiting trial.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/04/21 01:49 AM
0

People write wills.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/04/21 10:28 AM
2

This sub is just "woman bad" now.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/04/21 08:02 PM
-3

You don't actually speak to a lot of women do you?
/r/MensRights20/03/21 11:11 PM
1

That is literally what the offence criminalises. That is what it was written for. I'm just assuming now that you're not actually interested in legitimate discourse and are just going to respond to everything with "no" and "you're lying".
/r/MensRights19/03/21 04:36 PM
1

That was one of the reasons why the offence causing sexual activity without consent was created in the sexual offences act 2003. It specifically addresses women forcing a man to have sex with them. That was the government's "solution" to women being unable to be charged with rape. It's not a lie. It's literally the law. Written in black and white.
/r/MensRights19/03/21 04:20 PM
0

There's no such thing as the sexual assault act. Its the sexual offences act. And yes, it made a lot of new things illegal and updated sentencing. What's your point?
/r/MensRights19/03/21 03:57 PM
1

No, women cannot be charged with rape. This was one of the criticisms of the law over 20 years ago. And the "solution" was to create a new offence that women can be charged with. All people are doing now is bringing up the original argument that women cannot be charged with rape. Which, according to the government. They have already fixed. And they can just wave away any criticism by pointing out the fix they made. Until people actually start pointing out that the "fix" isn't good enough, and ac…
/r/MensRights19/03/21 03:46 PM
3

If we ignore that they exist. Then they just point to them as a solution to us pointing out that women can't be charged with rape. The issue isn't that equivalent crimes don't exist for both men and women. The issue is with the idea of "separate but equal" never actually being equal. But the UK government can continue to just wave away our legitimate concern because people keep making petitions about a law they don't seem to actually know.
/r/MensRights19/03/21 03:13 PM
6

Its oddly worded because it also covers forcing someone to penetrate another using something that isn't part of their body. A sex toy or any other foreign object.
/r/MensRights19/03/21 12:39 AM
14

Rape and Causing sexual activity without consent, however have the same sentencing. As does sexual assault by penetration. Not saying that it shouldn't be rewritten with more gender neutral terms. However we can't ignore that the sexual offences act includes other offences that match rape in punishment.
/r/MensRights18/03/21 11:23 PM
13

Now, remember we're directed to look at (4). Can anyone point out where in that subsection it deals with a female forcing a male to penetrate her as the government response claims? It doesn't. ...yes it does. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved— (a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina, (b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis, >(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or (d)penetration o…
/r/MensRights18/03/21 11:17 PM
2

Justice won't be needed in this case. Apart for the 15 year old who was attacked with a meat cleaver.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/03/21 05:07 PM
4

My apologies, I saw York, and assumed the UK.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 04:29 PM
-1

"Hit and run" isn't a separate crime in the UK, that she fled is just a mitigating factor that would increase her sentence, hence why she didn't get as light a sentence as those men.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 04:08 PM
-1

A man could get less. Like a fine, a community order, or a suspended sentence.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 03:52 PM
7

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-university-academic-pensioner-dies-19953780 Six month sentence - suspended. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2874451/driver-fined-fatal-crash/ Fine. https://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/18997539.knutsford-man-sentenced-death-careless-driving-case/ 18 month community order. EDIT: these are UK examples, I incorrectly assumed this was the UK.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 03:35 PM
-3

A curfew is actually one of the recommended sentences for causing death by careless driving in the UK. The sentencing is notoriously light for it here. She received a pretty typical sentence.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 03:29 PM
2

Sentencing for causing death while driving is notoriously light in the UK. Especially for death caused by careless driving as opposed to dangerous driving. This is actually a pretty typical sentence, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 03:21 PM
2

The funding instead will go to organisations who help everyone.
/r/MensRights02/03/21 02:29 PM
3

No, because being smarter doesn't mean that your brain is more complex or works harder.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/21 12:24 PM
3

Didn't they also discover there were differences between the brains of biological (wo)men and trans (wo)men. That more aligned with the gender they identify with?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/21 12:23 PM
1

The title only demeans men if that's what you want it to do. Men and Women's brains work differently, this includes having a different workload when completing similar tests. This is no more demeaning men than saying that the differences physically between men and woman demeans women.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/21 12:14 PM
4

Its not just a news headline, it's the results of an actual scientific study. And it has nothing to do with intelligence. Men's and women's brains just work slightly differently.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/21 12:09 PM
1

Again, so? Something that happens in California, Texas, Hawaii. Literally any state. Is happening in the United States. Different laws have nothing to do with it.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/21 02:17 PM
1

So? Do you think that California or Texas isn't in the United States or something?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/21 12:28 AM
6

Can you murder a hypothetical person?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/02/21 08:35 AM
15

Who was murdered?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/02/21 12:37 AM
3

Imagine thinking this was serious and not just some soldiers messing around.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/01/21 06:51 PM
0

How have I lost anything? Are you assuming that just because I think that Chris Brown got away with beating the shit out his partner, that I would somehow defend Amber Heard for doing the same? Both of them are absolute pieces of shit and should never be heard from again.
/r/MensRights30/01/21 02:36 PM
-3

He has had 3 number 1 albums, and 4 top 10 singles since the Rihanna incident. And had been nominated and won several awards.
/r/MensRights30/01/21 10:12 AM
2

Imagine if a Male Rapper came out and admitted he use to drug women, he would be thrown to the wolves and never to be heard from again. Tbf, few people cared when Chris Brown beat the shit out of Rihanna.
/r/MensRights30/01/21 09:35 AM
9

Oh, it definitely should be combined into a single offence.
/r/MensRights17/01/21 10:37 AM
4

I'm pretty sure they just cite the sexual offences act.
/r/MensRights17/01/21 09:46 AM
16

No, it's causing sexual activity without consent.
/r/MensRights17/01/21 09:34 AM
15

It is instead causing sexual activity without consent, which carries the exact same sentencing as rape.
/r/MensRights17/01/21 09:24 AM
2

Erm, how is this PPD?
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/21 05:45 PM
1

The version of the ERA including the Hayden rider were passed in the Senate in 1950, and 1953, neither times it passed the house, and so didn't go to the states for ratification. After this the Hayden rider was dropped. Including in 1972 when it passed the Senate, the House, and went to the states for ratification. Here is the current wording of the ERA as passed in 1972. "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account …
/r/MensRights11/01/21 08:36 PM
0

The Hayden rider isn't a thing any more, it was introduced in the 50s but never passed. Subsequent versions of the amendment, including the current one. Which is the one the LoWV supports. Doesn't include it. And I don't think that 19 years really counts as 'just after'.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 08:17 PM
1

The LoWV now supports the ERA. And have done for 50 years. That also has nothing to do with my comment about the Hayden rider.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 07:50 PM
1

Link that the LoWV supported the Hayden rider?
/r/MensRights11/01/21 04:41 PM
1

Here's interviews with Alice Paul, the original writer of the amendment. And leader of the national womens party. http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6f59n89c&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text Page 518 Paul Well, every year, the Hayden rider was always, always a thorn in our flesh. And you know they nearly got it through in 1950, almost got it through. You probably know that. The Heyden rider was never an actual part of the ERA, only a proposed addition.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 04:04 PM
0

The Hayden rider never passed the house, and was opposed by feminist groups. The Hayden rider was an attempt by anti-feminists to neuter the amendment.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 01:32 PM
-3

But feminists did raise their voice for that. Half a century ago. One of the major reasons why the equal rights amendment was defeated was because anti-feminist groups were against the amendment meaning that women would have to sign up for the draft. They also warned that the amendment would mean the end of alimony and would mean more equal custody of children.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 11:00 AM
-3

Feminists tried to pass the equal rights amendment. Which would have, among other things, required women to register for the draft. This was one of the major if not the major reason it was so opposed by anti-feminist groups. If feminists had their way, this wouldn't be an issue, and wouldn't have been for the last 40+ years.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 10:51 AM
1

Maybe, but she definitely doesn't sound like the CEO from that story.
/r/MensRights10/01/21 04:39 PM
1

Nooyi was 62 when she stepped down as CEO. She didn't step down to look after her children. She's also still working, just at a different organisation.
/r/MensRights10/01/21 04:19 PM
1

Its a nice story, but Coke has never had a female CEO.
/r/MensRights10/01/21 10:27 AM
-1

No matter what, the states will always be, and have always been in the US. That is why it is called the United States. The states being separate entities have nothing to do with it.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/21 10:19 PM
22

Well it is wrong, unless you don't consider the states to be in the US. Even if it said "first woman executed by the US..." that would be correct but confusing, but it doesn't, it says "first woman executed in the US..." Which is just incorrect. Someone executed by a state, is still in the US when they were executed.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/21 08:14 PM
1

A repeated attack would be more than one incident, or an incident that lasted a prolonged period of time, this was one incident with two stabs. No judge would consider that repeated or sustained.
/r/MensRights02/01/21 06:28 PM
1

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-constitutes-gbh-with-intent/ GBH (grievous bodily harm) with intent is a Section 18 offence rather than a lesser Section 20 offence. Assault can be committed recklessly or intentionally, so to prove intent it must be demonstrated that the offender both caused severe injuries and intended to cause them. Factors indicating intent include evidence of planning and prior threats, repeated or sustained assault, the choice of offensive weapon and excessive fo…
/r/MensRights02/01/21 05:35 PM
1

The intent is proven by the fact that there were two wounds, the fact that she left the room to get the the knife and the location of the wounds. It really isn't.
/r/MensRights02/01/21 05:09 PM
1

Lol. Oh please explain to me why it makes a difference?
/r/MensRights31/12/20 12:48 AM
0

Lol. Thats the most cop out reply I've seen in ages.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 12:30 AM
1

How does it matter in the slightest? The boy scouts have more resources, therefore they are able to do more. How does why they have more resources change that?
/r/MensRights31/12/20 12:21 AM
1

But why does it matter? One organisation has more resources than the other, the reason why doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 12:15 AM
1

The numbers isn't all that different, 2.5m for girl scouts, 2.7m for boy scouts. However, why does that matter? My point was that the boy scouts have much greater resources than the girl scouts, why that is the case doesn't really change that does it?
/r/MensRights30/12/20 01:55 PM
1

Even so. What exactly does that have to do with the girl scouts? Do you think that girls learning about STEM in inherently wrong?
/r/MensRights30/12/20 01:52 PM
1

That is ironic in the same way that rain on your wedding day is ironic.
/r/MensRights29/12/20 08:04 AM
1

That, isn't what irony is. A fire station burning down. That is ironic.
/r/MensRights29/12/20 12:22 AM
0

...how exactly is saying what badges the girl scouts offers. Teaching left wing politics? Are you just spouting off angry buzzwords?
/r/MensRights28/12/20 10:42 PM
1

Both organisations make their finances public, its not difficult to find. Boy Scouts total revenue was $329,284,000 in 2019. Girl scouts was $125,866,00 in 2019
/r/MensRights28/12/20 10:39 PM
1

Because they operate differently, and boy scouts has much better access to these things on account of having much higher revenues.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 07:20 PM
0

The boy scouts is a much larger organisation in terms of revenue and spending. So while both do offer similar programs, in most places ability to actually do them will be easier for the boy scouts. And while they do offer very similar activities, there is a difference in how these are actually attained. The boy scouts tend to lean towards solo work, and the girl scouts more towards group work for example. The boy scouts are also much more prestigious, as the girl scouts are often seen as just se…
/r/MensRights28/12/20 07:17 PM
-1

They have a whole set of different badges that girls can achieve. Just like the boy scouts.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 06:30 PM
1

No they're not. They also cover, STEM subjects, the outdoors, life skills, art, financial literacy, health, and relationships.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 06:14 PM
1

Yes. A 16 year sexting a 11-13 year old (according to OP).
/r/MensRights28/12/20 04:51 PM
0

In the majority of states in the US, the boy wouldn't be underage.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 04:15 PM
1

I mean, they could. But any court would throw it out within seconds of reading it. For failing to meet even the basics of being a legitimate lawsuit.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 04:14 PM
1

Thats just not how court decisions work. Even in cases where people have successfully overturned previous court decisions, it doesn't happen by suing the original person who sued.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:57 PM
0

Minors can still commit crimes.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:53 PM
-4

Minors can still commit crimes.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:53 PM
2

The girl scouts were completely against the original ruling. So how exactly is them suing to reverse it in any way the opposite of what someone would expect?
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:31 PM
1

Anyone can sue anyone else for literally any reason. Them doing so does not mean that their stance has any merit. And considering the girl scouts were totally against the original ruling, why is anyone surprised that they would try a lawsuit to reverse it. I doubt there is a chance in hell that they'll be successful, but I'm not shocked that they tried.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:29 PM
-5

16 is the age of consent in 31 states.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 03:04 PM
-6

He was sexting a child... Wtf is this thread.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 02:56 PM
-4

The Boy Scouts also have civics based merit badges. And the girl scouts do cover camping, nature and conservation.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 02:20 PM
-31

Their ideological agenda?
/r/MensRights28/12/20 01:26 PM
-55

No, that's not ironic at all.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 01:04 PM
-54

Ok... your point being? Girls can and do have different opinions of things, including this.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 12:54 PM
77

Tbf, the girl scouts were against the decision from the start.
/r/MensRights28/12/20 09:33 AM
3

Even some "confessed" murderers have turned out to be innocent. There is no such thing as a perfect judicial system, and even the most "obvious" convictions should be given the same checks as the least.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/20 11:57 PM
5

I'm sure all the people who are released years after being put on death row because it turns out they were innocent are pretty glad the process is as long and expensive as it is.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/20 10:26 PM
22

I agree, the names of accused should be given the same protection as that of accusers.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 07:37 PM
48

Theres a big difference between not meeting the standard to prove the charge. And the accusation bring disproved. A false accusation is a crime within itself, that needs to be proven to the same standard of evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we should be fighting to apply to everyone. And we have to accept that this means that the law is not a black and white either/or situation.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 07:02 PM
21

Those pesky canadian Democrats.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:21 AM
2

In other words. They didn't enforce their anti-nudity policy.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/20 07:16 AM
0

But they didn't enforce the anti-nudity policy. She had posted nudes and her account stayed online, it was only after she joked about blowing the CEO that her account was banned. Really looks like she was banned for the comment, not the nudity.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/20 02:50 PM
1

In the British way of using the word. Its a school for 13-18 year olds, nothing like a university.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 08:17 PM
1

This isn't a university.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 07:03 PM
10

Eton isn't a college like a US college. Its a private boys boarding school for 13-18 year olds.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 03:36 PM
-2

Doesn't matter if its a public system, or a private system. Enough capacity to allow everyone one to be seen for any reason with zero wait would be prohibitively expensive. Waiting times are inevitable, and that's ok because not all medical issues need to be seen this very second.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 03:11 PM
6

I mean if they were actually being competitive, don't you think they would hit the ball towards them? Since the whole point of tennis is to make your opponent not hit the ball back to you.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/11/20 12:48 PM
5

Longer waiting lists is just what happens when everyone has access to healthcare.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 12:24 PM
1

Only if you don't actually read the article.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 01:11 PM
1

You mean the title that is deliberate clickbait? That you are still falling for.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 01:00 AM
1

Sure, if you can't read past the title.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:01 PM
1

And some people were calling Beyoncé out, while celebrating others doing the same. And even if absolutely no one did, it doesn't matter, because they doesn't change that the author is staying to blame everyone, including Beyoncé. How common people were blaming Beyoncé only is completely irrelevant. The author is saying blame everyone. How you get from that to "don't blame Beyoncé at all" is an amazing feat of mental gymnastics.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 02:09 PM
1

So to pin the blame solely on Beyoncé is absurd Think about that sentence for a moment, and what it actually means. If you think that means not to blame Beyoncé at all, then I must assume that English isn't your first language.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 12:05 PM
1

No where in the article does the author claim that everyone is only calling Beyoncé out, not does it try and let Beyoncé off the hook. The very opposite, the author says it is great that people are denouncing the use of sweatshop labour. It's the very first sentence in the article. Stop arguing against the title, while completing ignoring the content of the article.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 02:03 AM
1

The article literally gives examples of people and organisations who attacked Beyoncé while celebrating others doing the same thing. I get it, it can be difficult to admit you were fooled by a basic viral marketing technique, so just admit it, learn from it, and move on with your life.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 07:28 PM
0

No it's not. First of all I was describing what the article said, not my own opinion. And secondly, what I was describing was a call against the hypocrisy of calling out Beyoncé, while being ok with others doing the same. Which is what the article is about. Stop falling for clickbait titles.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 06:34 PM
-1

Who said she was?
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:03 PM
3

Pretty much the entire fashion industry uses sweatshop labour. They should all be held responsible. Which is the entire point of the article. Why are so many people now having a go at Beyoncé when in the past they've been perfectly fine with other manufacturers doing the same. "Don't blame Beyoncé..." is a purposefully provocative title so that people get angry and share the article without actually reading it.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 12:51 PM
1

Can this sub please stop falling for clickbait titles?
/r/MensRights14/11/20 09:36 AM
-72

As stupid as this decision was, they were engaged, so not just a girlfriend.
/r/MensRights12/11/20 12:10 PM
4

No it wasn't. It was just against the Sun, or more accurately against News Group Newspapers. And it's executive editor, Dan Wootton. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/depp-v-news-group-judgment180520.pdf Heard gave evidence, but she was not a defendant.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 05:34 PM
22

That was a court case against the sun newspaper. Depp's case against Heard won't happen until May 2021.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 03:54 PM
2

The case will be heard next May.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 03:51 PM
6

The case has not happened.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 03:50 PM
4

Like it or not, yes. Body autonomy comes before others lives. Otherwise it would be ok to force people to give blood or donate a kidney.
/r/MensRights11/11/20 02:00 AM
7

For abortion the body autonomy argument is still the strongest one.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 09:14 PM
13

The simplest reason, even ignoring all the medical ones. Is that body autonomy is a thing. Outside of necessary medial reasons, it is completely unethical for one person to make permanent changes to another person's body. Babies are not the property of their parents, for the parents to do with as they wish.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 05:50 PM
9

Some of the public said that he manhandled her. There was no official accusation I believe.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/20 07:45 AM
1

This was a civil case, the standard of proof is much lower, and it does not mean that it has been "proven" that he did it. Quite the opposite, the results of civil cases have absolutely no effect on a criminal case.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/11/20 08:12 PM
1

Its because these laws are written around the idea that the act required for a crime involving sex is the penetration of one person by another. And to be as specific as possible as to not create grey areas, this act is split up according according to what is being used to penetrate, and who the victim is. It is further split up because penetration of a mouth by a penis is considered sexual, but penetration of a mouth by something else is not necessarily thought as sexual.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:39 PM
2

Rape is penetration with a penis, assault by penetration is penetration by anything else.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 03:19 PM
0

Writing a reply to a petition is not a lot of time.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 02:36 PM
2

A male rapist wouldn't also be charged with causing sexual activity without consent.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 01:23 PM
5

You are looking at the wrong crime. A woman wouldn't just be charged with sexual assault, they would be charged with causing sexual activity without consent. That has much different sentencing to sexual assault.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 09:34 AM
-21

The government position will always be that it has too much to do than to rewrite laws just to make people feel better when it has no actual effect on how crimes are sentenced.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 09:26 AM
2

It is just named differently. The UK manslaughter is 'worse' than US manslaughter.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 07:50 AM
2

There are two major groups of manslaughter in the UK, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is the one where it was an accident would be put.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 05:52 PM
1

Manslaughter is unintentional killing while murder is intentional Not in the UK it isn't. Manslaughter is murder without premeditation.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 04:10 PM
3

Not in the UK it isn't. It is murder without premeditation.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 04:09 PM
5

In the UK, manslaughter is the equivalent of second degree murder.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 04:08 PM
2

But this is not what the MP is calling for. She is calling for punishment off the field for something that at best would have drawn the yellow card. Where does she call for off the field punishment?
/r/MensRights22/10/20 07:47 PM
5

They are wrong. Rules were introduced 4 years ago regarding this; https://www.premierleague.com/news/65240 Physical contact with match officials A yellow card for physical contact with any match official in a non-aggressive manner (e.g. an inquisitive approach to grab the official’s attention). A red card for physical contact with match officials in an aggressive or confrontational manner.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 11:46 PM
1

They are wrong. Rules were introduced 4 years ago regarding this; https://www.premierleague.com/news/65240 Physical contact with match officials A yellow card for physical contact with any match official in a non-aggressive manner (e.g. an inquisitive approach to grab the official’s attention). A red card for physical contact with match officials in an aggressive or confrontational manner.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 11:10 PM
4

All touching of an official should be punished. Because that's what the rules say.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:59 PM
2

It's against the rules to touch a referee or official. Regardless of the genders involved he should have been punished.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:56 PM
7

Spoiler alert, OP is misrepresenting the story.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:31 PM
2

The attack didn't happen on her break, she had returned at that point.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:30 PM
2

The attack didn't happen on her break, she was back at the arena at that point.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:30 PM
5

Even if they didn’t know about it, it doesn't change what she did to deserve the award. If you saved a person's life at work, would it matter if you were late that day?
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:29 PM
5

She got the award because of what she did after the explosion. She returned to the arena prior to the explosion and was still one of the first at the scene.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:27 PM
6

She was at the event. She took a long break, and doesn't deny that, but still returned prior to the incident.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:23 PM
1

Where's the link?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/10/20 11:59 AM
-5

That is entirely down to the people who did it. Not the 10 year old.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 11:49 PM
1

That is entirely down to the people who did it. Not the 10 year old.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 11:49 PM
-20

If any 10 year old, female or male, say they've been touched inappropriate, people take what they said seriously.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 07:11 PM
-16

A 10 year old made the accusation.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 07:03 PM
-3

I don't see any employee though, and I would think it would be pretty vital for them to be there. To make sure it was the right person.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/20 07:50 PM
-3

She was asked to leave and refused. Now she's trespassing and the police can step in, but she still needs to leave the train. Can a 3rd party decide if someone is trespassing or not? Even if it is a cop?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/20 07:16 PM
2

In the UK it wouldn't be much different, we have notoriously light sentencing for sex crimes. For example; https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/87512-2/ https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/1093523/man-jailed-for-sex-offences-involving-13-year-old-girls-in-perth-and-inchture/
/r/MensRights14/09/20 07:47 AM
2

That is still their mental state.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 01:48 PM
4

Motive matters in crime. Its the difference between murder and manslaughter for example.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 08:02 AM
-3

This is a quarantine.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/20 07:44 PM
1

The BLM protesters were also fined.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/20 07:43 PM
3

There's a quarantine in place.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/20 07:41 PM
-25

This is satire. And you all fell for it as hard as FDS did.
/r/MensRights26/08/20 06:36 AM
6

The government has now announced a U-turn on the algorithm used, and will just be using the original estimates given by teachers.
/r/MensRights17/08/20 06:32 PM
6

The government has announced that they are going to revert back to the given results.
/r/MensRights17/08/20 06:29 PM
6

As a whole, the internet doesn't care about anyone's mental health.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 07:44 PM
1

It's been up for 4 weeks. It's not getting removed.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 07:43 PM
1

That your comment was wrong.
/r/MensRights12/08/20 10:25 PM
1

But the reason why it is being phased in, has nothing to do with womens rights. If it wasn't something that is usually phased in, then it wouldn't have been.
/r/MensRights12/08/20 10:14 PM
0

Yes, it means they aren't doing something different just because it affects women. Unlike what you suggested.
/r/MensRights12/08/20 10:02 PM
5

WASPI aren't complaining about the change to make the pension age equal, they complain about how it is being done. Specifically how the pensions act 2011 accelerated it, completely changing how long the women affected had to prepare for retirement less than a decade before they were due to retire, and which had previously been outlined 15 years beforehand. There is a reason pension changes are planned and announced decades before people will be affected by them, so that people can suitably prepa…
/r/MensRights12/08/20 09:57 PM
1

That is how all increases to the retirement age have been introduced in the UK.
/r/MensRights12/08/20 09:42 PM
3

Also forces more people to touch the seat. This is one of the reasons you should be washing your hands afterwards.
/r/MensRights08/08/20 12:16 PM
1

The only one laughing here is me. You're really bad at this. Call someone a dumb cunt. And tell them that their kid will hate them, I'm assuming that you're about 12 with the quality of these insults. It's ok. You'll grow up and get better at it one day.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/20 05:43 AM
0

On behalf of my son, go fuck yourself.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/08/20 11:39 PM
0

But you do have a choice. No I don't. Being homeless and not providing a home for my son is not an option. That you think it is... is really fucked up.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/08/20 10:50 PM
0

I myself have no choice but to pay for childcare. Because if I didn't and looked after my son myself and didn't go go work. I couldn't afford to have house, buy food, or do anything else.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/08/20 11:33 AM
0

You do realise I could just as easily come up with some examples of people I know who have no choice but to pay for child care right? Single examples mean nothing.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/08/20 07:45 AM
0

Congratulations on finding an anecdote. Great for them if they can make that work, I imagine that never seeing each other is going to end up being a huge strain on their relationship that I hope they manage to overcome. But them being able to manage an extremely difficult situation doesn't make it less vital for others.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 08:02 PM
0

If its things like childcare, then yes. People need to spend that much.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 05:40 PM
-1

So not quite "no way a kid needs that" then.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 04:31 PM
-1

Stay at home parents are pretty rare these days now aren't they? Especially when we're talking about parents who are separated. End of the day. It's not that hard to think it may cost 1000 a month for a child once you consider all the costs. And that includes child care.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 04:16 PM
-3

Considering the average cost of childcare in the US is nearly $10,000 per year itself. I would argue that most kids do need that.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 03:37 PM
-1

Average cost of raising a child from birth to 18 years old in the US is $233,610. That is $12,978 per year, or $1,081 per month.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 03:11 PM
4

There's no punishment, because there was no hidden assets and he didn't get 140m All the details of the divorce are being kept private.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/20 04:20 PM
10

That's because it's wrong, and whoever wrote is made the mistake I mentioned.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/20 07:48 AM
16

The story is some people dont realise that £ and $ arent the same thing. She is worth £140m, so the divorce will split £140m. £140m is about $190m Some people saw £140m and thought it was just $140, and ran the two figures together.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/20 07:26 AM
1

No she didn't. Because the image isn't true.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/20 07:24 AM
2

Wasn't this just posted? It's all incorrect. The details of their divorce is being kept private, and some people got mixed up because her net worth is £140m($190m).
/r/PussyPassDenied27/07/20 07:23 AM
1

That's because the top image is wrong. People got mixed up with the different conversions of her wealth. She is worth £140m, and her divorce will split £140m. https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/adele-divorce-settlement-details-private-a4407781.html
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 02:17 PM
1

What?...
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 02:08 PM
5

A short google search should have brought you to the correct story. This is all fake. She is worth £140m ($190m), and the divorce settlement will split that £140m, but the details have been kept private due to a request from both Adele and her ex-husband.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/20 07:39 AM
1

Its £140m, which is about $190m. The actual settlement is being kept private.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/20 07:13 AM
8

No she didn't, because this post isn't true. The divorce settlement has been kept private, and reporters made up stories based off her net worth being changed between dollars and pounds.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/20 07:10 AM
13

Its run by a domestic abuse organisation, not the railways. You contact them, and they get a ticket for you.
/r/MensRights18/07/20 08:17 AM
2

People in Spain.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/07/20 04:37 PM
5

Have you tried just not being poor?
/r/MensRights08/07/20 05:15 PM
2

This has nothing to do with the reddit admins. Thats an anti-feminist subreddit, and they set themselves to private and put that blurb up themselves.
/r/MensRights01/07/20 12:18 PM
1

So all parents matter then right?
/r/MensRights21/06/20 08:08 PM
1

Nowhere does it say the mother didn't care for the child.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 09:59 AM
1

The father wasn't punished for the child's death. He was punished for making perceived threats towards a judge. Now he shouldn't have been punished for that, but that doesn't change what he was punished for.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 09:56 AM
-4

The kid died of a medical condition, the mother had nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 10:26 PM
11

The sex offender registery isn't just for paedophiles.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/20 02:16 PM
1

Robbed, not raped.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/20 01:12 PM
13

So it looks like this is from a series of photos taken of victims of domestic abuse. And since the sign is a quote, clearly this person is showing something that was said to her, as other photos do the same. https://m.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.420246098172434.1073742076.158586541005059&type=3
/r/MensRights07/06/20 08:08 AM
6

My argument against capital punishment is a simple one. I don't trust any government enough to have the power to carry out executions.
/r/MensRights04/06/20 05:18 PM
1

She wasn't aquitted, she was found guilty.
/r/MensRights16/05/20 12:21 PM
-8

Hmm. Interesting that you'd ignore the fact that she involved a child in her sexual fantasy. No I didn't, and neither did the court, she was charged and found guilty of abusing children sexually. Regardless of why she did it, she was still charged for the actions she did. What is interesting is how you try and make this sound like its supposed to apply to all women, when it was evidence given about a specific women, in a specific case.
/r/MensRights16/05/20 09:08 AM
-13

Considering several woman have been charged and sentenced for child abuse and for child pornography in this case. And one of the men connected was acquitted. It doesn't sound like its that much of a safe haven. This opinion piece is referring to the evidence given by the forensic psychologist that she was not motivated by an attraction to children, but by a sexual attraction to being humiliated, she was a masochist. She was still found guilty of child abuse and child pornography charges.
/r/MensRights16/05/20 08:13 AM
1

Well I haven't seen the messages between them. But I imagine they agreed that she would do certain things for him, in exchange for money. Because that's how being a sugar daddy/baby works. And you agree to exchange a service for money, even verbally or over a message, you have entered into a business arrangement.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/05/20 05:41 PM
1

I mean, she thought she entered into a business arrangement with someone. You do a job, you're entitled to the pay for that job. That's not pussy pass. That's how life works.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/05/20 05:08 PM
2

Even if she gave her financial information willingly, it's still fraud, and still a crime. A stupid victim if crime isn't any less of a victim.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/05/20 05:05 PM
2

Its the guys money. Who cares what he spends it on. If I buy something that I don't really need, is the person selling it scamming me? Because I've got a lot of shit that I don't necessarily need.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/05/20 03:43 PM
4

If someone is willing to pay, why the hell not? People get paid a lot of money to pretend to be lots of things.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/05/20 03:38 PM
5

What has this to do with PPD exactly?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/20 06:47 AM
1

The bill passed the second reading without being changed. And calling for it to be legal if the victim of domestic abuse is a male is clearly incorrect.
/r/MensRights06/05/20 08:23 PM
2

But this bill uses gender neutral language.
/r/MensRights06/05/20 07:28 PM
1

Grow a sense of humour then.
/r/MensRights05/05/20 07:59 AM
1

...it's a joke. Jesus Christ.
/r/MensRights05/05/20 07:59 AM
2

I don't dismiss it, I just recognize what is clearly a joke, in a medium that is very famous in the UK for its jokes. You're as humourless as a hardcore feminist.
/r/MensRights04/05/20 08:59 PM
3

You can just look it up yourself if you want more examples, but here you go; https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/dec/23/theeditorpressreview1 https://startsat60.com/discover/lifestyle/the-funniest-letter-to-the-editor-collection/amp https://thechive.com/2016/05/18/writing-letters-to-the-editor-is-dying-art-form-24-photos/ The letter in question is clearly a joke.
/r/MensRights04/05/20 08:20 PM
3

You do all realise that this sort of "letter to the editor" is very common in British media. It's a joke, it's not a serious comment.
/r/MensRights04/05/20 07:41 PM
9

Didn't one case have the accuser being able to verify at least parts of the story, and find others who could corroborate it also, all while the accused did everything to block any investigation. Meanwhile the accused in the other case has welcomed an investigation, which has led to the accuser changing their story several times as the facts have cast doubt? Not quite sure how these two situations are similar at all.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/20 07:45 PM
5

That man is a journalist, and this is from a segment in a morning TV show.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 06:33 PM
0

Because they're not douches.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/04/20 06:31 PM
1

But you choose to rape a child.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/04/20 12:22 PM
2

I think the root of the issue is the same as the root that makes "regular" rapists what they are. It is possible for someone to have an attraction, and know its wrong to act out upon it when the target cannot consent. Regardless of what the attraction is.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/04/20 10:30 AM
10

The mental illness isn't necessarily the attraction. It's the willingness to act out upon it regardless of the willingness of the victim. There's a big difference between "I'm attracted to x", and "I'm attracted to x, and I don't care if they can or do consent to it, I'm going to fuck them anyways".
/r/PussyPassDenied28/04/20 09:02 AM
-1

Do you think that's true in the Ivory Coast?
/r/MensRights25/04/20 04:58 PM
3

but you don’t need to die to feel the effects of Covid-19 Which is the point of the article here tbf.
/r/MensRights25/04/20 04:54 PM
16

it gets extra wild because a woman can lie say your the father even if you DONT KNOW HER and still even if proved not to be, be required to pay for the child. "because some one has to" or if you ever donate sperm wich is suposed to be anonymous and have 0 reprocusions can still have any and all possible children seek you out. man donates sperm and gets sued for child support https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/index.html The lesson here is actually go through the officia…
/r/MensRights25/04/20 07:34 AM
28

People who want to upload screenshots to reddit for karma.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/04/20 08:23 AM
1

In a lot of ways, it's not that hard to prove. If you can prove person A is in one location, person B was in a completely different location at the same time Well obviously, if you have proof, then it's easy to prove. But what about all the times when you don't have that proof?
/r/MensRights24/04/20 06:34 AM
5

You can already sue for defamation. However there is still a burden of proof in civil cases.
/r/MensRights23/04/20 10:33 PM
5

Unsubstantiated doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen, and the person who said it did is lying. It just means theres no proof to back it up. Which is good, that's how the courts should work, proof is needed to prove any claim. But no proof doesn't automatically mean that the accuser is lying, it just means there is no proof.
/r/MensRights23/04/20 09:47 PM
-3

The problem is how difficult it is to prove a false accusation.
/r/MensRights23/04/20 08:46 PM
1

It is. This is just some feel good legislation.
/r/MensRights23/04/20 08:27 PM
1

It was his ring finger on his right hand. So shouldn't effect his guitar playing too much.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/04/20 04:59 PM
3

She's got sharp knees, wouldn't bang.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/04/20 04:57 PM
9

I'm guessing its hyperbole since its framed as a way to stop abortions.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 09:24 PM
3

What power would the marines have over the Afghan nationals who raped the boys?
/r/MensRights15/04/20 06:36 PM
3

It's possibly your daily shampooing that is causing your hair to be in that condition. Try cutting down on the shampoo by washing with just conditioner between shampooing for a while and seeing how it effects your hair, that is good enough for washing out general day to day dirt.
/r/MensRights13/04/20 07:09 AM
1

I think it's pretty standard for the media to dig out the worst picture possible for negative stories.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/04/20 02:41 PM
23

No it doesn't. It says she gave him a property worth $600,000. A $600m property would be one of the most expensive properties in the world.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 07:14 PM
33

Well for one, its half of assets, not half of earnings. Because people don't just save 100% of their earnings. And $140m is nearly 75% of $190m, which is the highest I've seen Adele being worth. And that's all her worth, and they've only been married since 2016.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 07:04 PM
28

And half of her earnings during the marriage won't be $140m.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 06:39 PM
55

Because a tabloid just pulled these numbers from their rear.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 05:23 PM
1

Theres none. Because the details of the divorce are being kept private by both parties. Someone just made this up.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/20 11:22 AM
2

Aren't all the details of this divorce been kept private by both parties? So all the numbers here have just been pulled out the ass of some tabloid writer.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/20 12:10 AM
1

As far as I'm aware, non of his victims have claimed that they went to the police prior to being told they had been the victim of rape.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 08:40 PM
2

To add, it was because they drug he gave his victims resulted in memory loss. They didn't just think they weren't assaulted because they were guys.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 08:01 PM
6

He wasn't caught earlier because none of the men realised they had been raped, because of the drugs they were given. The victims only found out because videos of the attacks were found on his phone.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 07:42 PM
1

They're not suggesting anything, they are stating facts in regards to a news story.
/r/MensRights02/04/20 06:50 AM
2

Here's a guardian article from a football game the day after. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/mar/09/leicester-aston-villa-premier-league-match-report Again, no mention of coronavirus.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 07:39 PM
1

Theres literally nothing in that article about Coronavirus. So they're not calling for it to go ahead, they're just writing an article about it, almost as if they're some sort of newspaper.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 02:30 PM
1

Yes... who?
/r/MensRights01/04/20 12:44 PM
1

Those who are now shouting loudest about incompetence above, were also those supporting this match go ahead. I think we are just calling out hypocrisy here. Who were these people?
/r/MensRights01/04/20 11:27 AM
29

Plenty of men's sporting events were also taking part at that time.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 09:19 AM
10

Different countries, La Liga (the league in Spain) still had matches on until the 10th. They made the decision to postpone all matches on the 12th.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 06:58 AM
1

I didn't say it wasn't stupid. But she at least didn't back down after the first hit.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/03/20 06:32 PM
6

That doesn't look like shock, she was reeled by the hit. But she didn't hesitate after she steadied herself.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/03/20 04:31 PM
136

I'm almost impressed, she didn't act shocked and try and run away, she took it and went back for more.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/03/20 03:24 PM
1

There is a Canadian Men's Health Foundation. I don't know if they're doing anything specific regarding the current pandemic however.
/r/MensRights30/03/20 12:21 AM
2

This picture isn't of that couple. It's from a satire news website. https://www.theshitnews.com/2019/02/feminist-lesbian-couple-sues-sperm.html?m=1
/r/MensRights23/03/20 06:37 PM
3

It's fake. https://www.theshitnews.com/2019/02/feminist-lesbian-couple-sues-sperm.html?m=1
/r/MensRights23/03/20 06:34 PM
-3

This is fake. https://www.theshitnews.com/2019/02/feminist-lesbian-couple-sues-sperm.html?m=1
/r/MensRights23/03/20 06:25 PM
0

You're aware of the southern strategy right? Republicans stopped being the party of Lincoln a long time ago.
/r/MensRights15/03/20 03:18 PM
1

Way back in the day, before they became Republicans because of the civil rights act.
/r/MensRights15/03/20 12:42 PM
71

Implying that Bloomberg is actually a Democrat, and not just calling himself one when it suits him.
/r/MensRights14/03/20 10:03 AM
27

I'm sure that even if she was a man, daddy would still have bought part of the record label.
/r/MensRights28/02/20 06:22 PM
8

Well doesn't pretty much everyone who has a dog love it unconditionally?
/r/MensRights27/02/20 07:05 AM
2

She wasn't wanting her hair cut though, she was waiting for her husband.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/20 09:16 PM
2

In Virginia, and in many places, possessing, distributing, and selling child photography are covered under the same law.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 03:57 PM
2

It says they suspended a campaign. In their own press release in the matter they say this is just the case until the matter is resolved, which it has been. The only people who lost out here are Mastercard, as they didnt use an add campaign they will have spent a fortune on.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 03:37 PM
2

Does no one actually read articles? Even so, Zachary was arrested and charged with 20 felonies, including indecent liberties with a minor, using a computer to propose sex, and "child porn reproduce/transmit/sell," He was 17/18, she was 13. And they had an "online romance".
/r/MensRights16/02/20 01:05 PM
2

The link you provided doesn't say that Neymar lost any endorsement, just that a specific ad campaign was suspended. As far as I'm aware he wasn't actually dropped by any endorser, some ads were just delayed.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 12:01 PM
22

I don't think he actually lost any deals. Some sponsors, including the one in the link suspended current ad campaigns when the allegations came out, but they didn't drop him. Meanwhile his accuser has been charged with Fraud, Extortion, and Slander.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 11:59 AM
4

I'm a dude, and I'd like to just stay at home and watch my kids if I could. This ain't a pp. It's just someone venting about how their life turned out not quite as they thought it would, like probably 99% of the population does.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/02/20 03:14 PM
0

BUT WIMMIN BAD!!!
/r/MensRights05/02/20 08:27 PM
2

This is Belarus.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/02/20 05:44 PM
1

There are a few issues with this. 1) Since even statements are a form of evidence, no accusation has zero evidence, because statements by the accuser are a form of evidence. They should not be strong enough evidence on their own to convict, but they are evidence. 2) the accuser doesn't make the decision to take an accusation to court, the prosecution service of your jurisdiction is. 3) assumption of guilt does not mean that accusations are automatically assumed false unless proven otherwise, ass…
/r/MensRights03/02/20 09:17 AM
1

There is a balance here. I think l if someone was going to the papers or writing over social media that x definitely raped them, when they either didn't go to the police at all, or the case was thrown out. Then yes, that is defamation. But for going to the police and accusing someone of a crime, but the police find no evidence, then that is not defamation. Even though some people take the idea too far, we do need to make sure that anyone feels like they can report crimes to the police and not wo…
/r/MensRights03/02/20 06:58 AM
4

If theres lack of evidence, then there's no evidence that the accusation was false either. Either way requires proof.
/r/MensRights02/02/20 09:56 PM
29

The guy behind Kellogg's thought it would prevent masturbation.
/r/MensRights23/01/20 03:47 PM
2

Nice completely unrelated comment you got there.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 05:41 PM
1

You do realise that the UK once had a nazi party right? The British Union of Fascists, they existed in the 30s. And EDL, have a direct link to them. EDL was set up by former BNP members, who were set up by former NF members, which was set up by former members of BUF. If you consider these people mainstream conservatives, than it says much more about you than it does about them.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 04:57 PM
1

The BBC blatantly supported the conservatives in the last election, to the point if ignoring election crimes by their journalists. And simply covering up gaffes by the Prime Minister that could potentially make him look bad.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 02:40 PM
8

Oxford isn't just a law school.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/20 11:10 AM
3

BBC used to do a pretty good job of remaining neutral in its journalism, and you could tell because both the right and the left accused it of leaning the opposite way. But changes in how its managed that were brought in under David Cameron has lead to the BBC moving heavily towards the right in recent years. Calling it left leaning these days is laughable.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 09:53 AM
10

The interviewer is one of the most right leaning journalists in the UK. He was the editor of the Times under Rupert Murdoch for 11 years, and is chair of the media group that owns the spectator, one of the most right wing media publications in the UK. Theres a reason why his only reaction to Shapiro accusing him of being on the left is to just Laugh.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 09:34 AM
26

To be effective to do what exactly?
/r/MensRights21/01/20 11:32 AM
34

Only if it was the same women. Women aren't a collective mass who all share the same views and opinions.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/01/20 11:26 AM
1

It stops when that person is above the age the law says its ok. If for example the law says that the age of consent for someone under a position of power is 21 (I've no idea what the law says in Oklahoma, this is just an example) then it's ok when the person is over the age of 21.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 07:11 AM
2

Often the age of consent is higher if there is a position of power involved.
/r/MensRights16/01/20 07:59 PM
1

They were both up for best actor?
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/20 01:54 PM
7

...but he didn't win any award over Beyonce.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/20 11:32 AM
17

But it was his best actor award at the Golden Globes. The only thing she was nominated for was best original song.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/20 11:32 AM
5

The video in question was taken on a different day to the alleged rape.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 11:34 PM
10

Since I'm just being downvoted rather than actually questioned about the video, here's the details on the video in relation to the alleged rape; The court heard she had sex with Sam on two nights prior to the attack when his friends were in the room and filmed them on their phones. On the third night they met she claimed the same group of men, aged from 15 -22, burst into the room, held her down and raped her. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7836437/British-woman-19-Derbyshire-guilty-ly…
/r/MensRights09/01/20 04:30 PM
7

I believe so, but the video isn't a video of the alleged rape, it was taken on an earlier day.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 02:52 PM
11

The video isn't a video of the alleged rape, it was taken on an earlier day.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 02:52 PM
13

No lawyer and no translator.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 01:30 PM
12

The judge also refused to hear evidence from a forensic pathologist that 35 bruises that she had on her legs, bottom, arms and face were consistent with rape. It's also possible she had further injuries on her torso, but the police never took photos of her without a shirt on. He dismissed them as jellyfish stings.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 01:19 PM
16

The retraction has been made public and has been reported in the UK media, this is what it says; "The report I did on the 17th of July 2019 that I was raped at ayia napa was not the truth. The truth is that I wasnt raped and everything that happened in that appartment (sic) was with my consent. "The reason I made the statement with the fake report is because I did not know they were recording & humiliating me that night I discovered them recording me doing sexual intercourse and I felt embarrass…
/r/MensRights09/01/20 01:00 PM
18

The confession was supposed to have been written by the woman, and supposed to be in her handwriting.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 12:41 PM
110

The judge is giving her a light sentence because no one in Cyprus wants a light shone on how the case has been handled. From the woman being questioned for hours without either a lawyer or an interpreter, from her writing a confession which is written in broken English using phrases that British people don't use, to the judge refusing to hear expert testimony provided by the defence. They want the whole thing to blow over quickly.
/r/MensRights09/01/20 11:40 AM
0

The judge refused to hear evidence that the injuries she had were consistent with rape, and evidence that the confession letter was written by someone who didn't speak English as a first language. So yeah, a lot of people suck in this case.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 10:42 PM
0

She didn't confess anything in court after watching the video though. The confession was written after she was questioned by the police for several hours. And she has never said that the sex in the video was anything but consensual, only the actual filming. No one has claimed that the video is a video of the alleged rape, the video was taken on a different day. She never denied that she had consensual sex, she even admits that it happened twice, a video of one of those occasions neither proves o…
/r/MensRights07/01/20 07:04 PM
8

The reason she was given a light sentence and allowed to go home is because the Cyprus police don't want anyone looking into why she didn't have a lawyer during her questioning, and why her confession was written in broken English.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 04:16 PM
2

The video in question neither proves or disproves anything, it's not a video of the alleged rape and was taken on an earlier day.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 04:14 PM
2

The video in question neither proves or disproves anything, it's not a video of the alleged rape and was taken on an earlier day.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 04:14 PM
6

A confession written in broken English too. Regardless of if she lied or not, the entire case has been a shambles.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 01:02 PM
3

The video in question was taken on a different day to the alleged rape. It neither proves or dispeoves the rape happened.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 01:01 PM
1

That would be fine, if those not elected were limited to the same. Every presidential candidate who is a current elected official has had to use their time to campaign. Short of a complete overhaul of how candidates can campaign, this isn't going to change soon.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/01/20 05:28 PM
0

So those who are already elected shouldn't ever run for another office?
/r/PussyPassDenied02/01/20 05:20 PM
21

I guess we're gonna have a lot of criminals identifying as a woman in the future.
/r/MensRights27/12/19 07:04 PM
1

Not directly, but they do use the infrastructure that it pays for.
/r/MensRights24/12/19 04:21 PM
7

Then congratulations, you wash yourself enough to be trusted with a foreskin.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 04:25 PM
7

If you think that being cut means you don't still need to wash it daily. Then yes, I question your personal hygiene.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 04:20 PM
6

There's this magic thing called soap. You should really try it.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 12:00 PM
9

Why is it that defenders of circumcision have never considered just washing their penis. I have bad news for you, cut or not, you still have to wash it.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 11:59 AM
11

This sub is just SomethingHappenedToAWoman now.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/19 01:05 PM
4

This happened in 1993, and thus she was charged with what the law was in 1993. This is why the sentence is so light, the sentencing for all crimes of this nature was less then.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 09:17 PM
11

Quit being such a snowflake.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 01:04 PM
163

She can't be identified because she's related to the victims. That's standard practice regardless of gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/12/19 03:43 PM
2

No authorities were involved. The school just contacted the kids family to let them know what was going on.
/r/MensRights28/11/19 01:21 PM
7

Old story, that's completely misleading. The school just contacted the family to say the child is having issues understanding boundaries, and took no action against the kid. All the talk of sexual assault and being a sex offender are quotes from the family.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 06:45 PM
2

First they would have to take her to court for a breach of contract. Depending on the user agreement of the airline, it could just be thrown out there and then. If not they could attempt to recover the debt, but there powers to do so at this point are very limited. If still not paid, they could again take her to court to get an enforcement order on the debt, which if granted a bailiff can collect the debt. So they would have to go through a lot of legal action, and probably end up collecting ver…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 07:40 PM
1

The airline sent her the bill, it wasn't issued by a court.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 07:21 PM
1

Only fines issued by a court.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 07:13 PM
7

Who ever said it had to be common? And there probably would be more examples of actual ppd on this subreddit, if folk didn't just go after the low hanging fruit of anything bad happens to a woman = ppd.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 09:28 AM
2

The fine was issued by the airline. Not paying it would be a civil matter, not a criminal one.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 09:07 AM
12

In a nutshell, yes. For a pussy pass to denied, first there must actually be a pussy pass presented.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/11/19 09:05 AM
1

I thought that she was indeed the 5th element, just that before she felt love from Dallas, that she didn't think the world was worth saving given what she'd learned from human history.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/11/19 11:31 AM
9

Captain Marvel has already been a black woman, Monica Rambeau. She was actually Captain Marvel before Carol Danvers was.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/11/19 06:40 AM
1

Unfortunately we can't claim to care about innocence until proven guilty and not provide the same to even false accusers.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 08:37 PM
0

Because the evidence didn't prove he was innocent, as is prove there was no way he committed the crime. It just introduced enough doubt to be found not guilty.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 01:31 PM
0

They do. The problem is being found not guilty doesn't automatically mean that the accuser lied.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 01:29 PM
2

Well here they're using the definition of rape that has been used in the UK legal system for centuries. What women can be guilty of is forcing another to penetrate, which has the same sentencing as rape.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 01:28 PM
1

They just care about clicks.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 09:54 PM
4

It's in a major newspaper, with a click bait title. They're counting on it being unpopular.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 02:52 PM
5

Guessing they don't know if $1400 is a little or a lot.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/19 01:52 PM
1

If an incel paid for sex once, would they stop being an incel?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/19 05:35 AM
1

You could stop trying, you could stop looking after yourself, you could become a huge asshole. There are plenty of ways.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 10:27 PM
1

I was giving a specific example. The same applies to incels, only they dont decide for themselves.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 09:28 PM
0

Where did I say involuntary?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 09:18 PM
3

Would you say that an incel who pays for sex once stops being an incel?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 07:08 PM
2

If you have sex with your girlfriend, and then decide to never have sex again. Then you're celibate.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 06:00 PM
5

To be celibate just means to abstain from having sex. You have have sex, and then become celibate at a later date.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 04:04 PM
10

With MGTOW isn't that a choice? So not involuntary.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 03:54 PM
8

Being celibate is just abstaining from having sex, not never having sex, otherwise there would be no need for the word virgin. You can have sex, and then be celibate afterwards.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 03:53 PM
-46

You don't have to be a virgin to be an incel though. Celibate doesn't mean you've never had sex.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/10/19 03:37 PM
3

Doctor was originally an academic term, calling medical practitioners doctor is a much newer thing, and in some places not always the case. Surgeons in the UK for example, are not doctors.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/10/19 01:44 PM
5

If you are not sick you need no circumcision. I feel like this part should be mentioned more.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 08:31 AM
7

So do you not wash your penis?
/r/MensRights06/10/19 08:20 AM
6

Good for you. You're part of the absolute minority that require a circumcision for medical reasons. Now explain why you think that everyone should have a medical procedure that only a tiny percentage actually need.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 08:18 AM
3

Speak for yourself.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 09:56 AM
1

Good for you.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/19 06:27 PM
3

If you're so well educated, which dictionary is the official prescriptive authority on English?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/19 04:29 PM
4

Just because people think that, doesnt make it so. English doesn't have any official prescriptive bodies, unlike other languages such as French, where the Académie française make decisions regarding the French language.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/19 04:22 PM
6

English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescripted. So they don't decide what is and isn't a word, they just identify what people use as words.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/19 03:53 PM
2

He didn't really stand up against it though. He wrote a newspaper article about it and went on with his life. It took another man to actually stand up against it and take legal action.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 04:17 PM
11

They are currently in court for this.
/r/MensRights24/09/19 04:37 PM
-1

If it looks like a duck...
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 04:03 PM
-1

I'm a hypocrite because of other peoples comments? So much for using your brains rather than your balls.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 03:55 PM
-2

We're not the ones terrified of women. Maybe you should start treating women as a person, rather than a set of genitals, maybe them you'll actually experience some real personal growth.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 03:41 PM
2

That's the look of someone who was drunk, and didn't know someone was going to die a few weeks later.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 03:36 PM
1

Trust me, the only pussy slave here is you.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 03:27 PM
16

Go get laid. You might stop obsessing about pussy so much.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/09/19 03:19 PM
1

They should just rename this sub shitdonebyawoman
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/19 10:51 AM
2

So is women generalizing about men ok or not?
/r/MensRights16/09/19 12:08 PM
0

Incel isn't a gendered term.
/r/MensRights16/09/19 12:07 PM
10

Isn't that how some people justify the negative things they say about men?
/r/MensRights16/09/19 10:19 AM
1

Do you even realise you're being sexist to men when saying that.. Only if you assume all men are incels. I don't, why do you?
/r/MensRights16/09/19 10:17 AM
5

I just have. The options are Female, Male, and other/withhold
/r/MensRights13/09/19 05:43 AM
5

An incel isn't just a guy who doesnt have kids.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/09/19 08:20 AM
-6

Did you ever see the incel communities here on reddit? A lot of men did flock to them because they hated women, or thought that women should be treated like property. It was a complete shitshow.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/09/19 08:19 AM
19

If you think that curcumcism is a viable alternative to washing, then please wash yourself more.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 04:03 PM
69

It's one of the rules of the internet. All girls are actually guys, and all children are undercover cops.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/09/19 12:36 PM
1

Look up what grooming is.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/09/19 08:35 AM
0

She didn't rape anyone.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/09/19 08:34 AM
3

If the genders were reversed, there would be no sexual grooming on the headline. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/man-arrested-tipton-suspicion-child-16753927 https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/17839313.waterston-man-arrested-suspicion-online-grooming/ https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/17854792.man-worcester-arrested-suspicion-sexual-grooming/ https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2019/08/29/jailed-father-of-three-38-groomed-13-year-old-girl/
/r/PussyPassDenied03/09/19 08:32 AM
5

Everyone here, and everyone involved the time Snoop Dogg did it are consenting adults, most of whom will be paid to be there. What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights28/08/19 09:28 AM
3

Snoop Dogg did it.
/r/MensRights28/08/19 09:06 AM
13

Are you comparing paying people to do stupid shit to slavery?
/r/MensRights28/08/19 08:04 AM
8

50 bucks is 50 bucks.
/r/MensRights28/08/19 08:03 AM
3

you know what else is a sexual characteristic? Beards.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 11:43 PM
4

sex organs aren't just things used for sexual purposes. A lot of the body is used for sexual purposes.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 11:42 PM
7

They're not sex organs. I think this deserves to be in r/badwomensanatomy
/r/MensRights27/08/19 09:24 PM
14

Breasts aren't reproductive organs, they're built in feeding bottles.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 06:29 PM
0

Britain just doesn't have "be pretty" be a requirement for any woman to be in the public eye.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/19 05:04 AM
12

FGM is a tradition too, should that be left to the parents? "Its tradition" isn't an argument. Here's a crazy idea, why don't we allow people to decide for themselves what happens to their genitals.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 01:08 PM
9

Condoms are far better at reducing STDs.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 10:19 AM
10

This is the definition used by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA. Partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons
/r/MensRights25/08/19 10:18 AM
0

You actually contradict yourself here as well, at first you're saying the media haven't given names out and you're telling me they're keeping the names hidden because of legal requirements. ...I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of a contradiction. The media won't name people when they can't, because that's the law.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 05:49 PM
0

I did, the men in those cases weren't completely cleared, because that's not how trials work. one of them, the first one, is even going to trial again for it. And I agree that there needs to be protections for the accused as well as the accuser.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 05:02 PM
-1

In none of those cases have the media took it upon themselves not to give names. Accusers are still given anonymity, even if the accused is found not guilty. And they don't use falsely accused, because theres a difference between a false accusation and a not-guilty verdict.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 03:49 PM
0

I've seen plenty of them posted to this subreddit that give the womans name. Do you have any actual examples where the media have taken it upon themselves to protect the identity of a woman?
/r/MensRights23/08/19 03:05 PM
2

The media won't protect anyone, if they can print any information, they will.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 02:16 PM
18

Yes.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 01:18 PM
5

I mean why should the other guys name be made public? Not his fault the mother lied to the father, his name shouldn't be dragged through the media.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 12:37 PM
2

Should ask them why they have an opinion of how good their babies penis looks.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 02:15 PM
1

That's a typical sentence for ABH. Here's another example of the same crime. Here's another.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 04:03 PM
1

She recieved a suspended sentence, which most people would receive for their first adult sentence (the previous 17 convictions were before she was 18), and she received a fine.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 03:44 PM
15

Will you be cheering when people take the law into their own hands after a man is accused of something?
/r/MensRights19/08/19 03:19 PM
1

The only thing I've seen, and been told here, is a reference to the governor talking about nonviable pregnancies going into labour. Trying to pass that off as the Democrats wanting to allow after birth abortion is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. But then I guess that was the point of trying to get the soundbite out of him.
/r/MensRights15/08/19 05:01 AM
1

What do you think nonviable means?
/r/MensRights14/08/19 06:08 PM
1

No law allowed for babies be born when nonviable? Who gets arrested in that case?
/r/MensRights14/08/19 06:05 PM
1

Both laws can allow the same things, you are aware of this right? If asked if the new law allowed abortion, she would answer yes, that doesn't mean the old law didn't allow abortion, because it did. I'm not 100% familiar with the exact laws, but I'm pretty sure that third trimester abortions were already legal for medical reasons. So even the previous law allowed for abortions up until the moment of birth, just like the new one.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 04:46 PM
1

He was talking about what would happen in that situation. He literally says that.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 03:39 PM
1

Well no, it's not. And even if it was, that already happens, and theres nothing you can do to prevent it from happening.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 02:59 PM
1

What do you think currently happens if a baby is born nonviable?
/r/MensRights14/08/19 02:38 PM
-1

He was talking about women who go in to labor when the baby is nonviable, or has severe fetal abnormalities. He says that just before he says the part you quoted.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 01:55 PM
-1

His comment had nothing to do with post birth abortion.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 11:48 AM
1

I don't see a link regarding after birth abortion. So I'm assuming you don't actually have one.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 10:56 AM
4

the Democrats are the ones who are pro abortion including after birth Gonna need a source for that last part.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 09:57 AM
1

How pathetic is your life to think that women aren't retarded monkeys ? Please, get out more.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/08/19 11:25 AM
1

The Daily Mail will print anything they think people will click on.
/r/MensRights11/08/19 06:48 PM
1

How many of the current players were playing back then?
/r/MensRights01/08/19 05:28 PM
1

Players aren't paid by the organizers of the world cup though, they're paid by their respective football associations.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 09:56 PM
0

England Spain and Germany actually made the competition though. The US did not.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 09:02 PM
1

Surely paying according to revenue over a long period of time is a terrible idea. If revenue dropped dramatically for a few years they could be stuck having to pay out more than they can afford. This will be why the NBAs salary cap is tied to the previous seasons revenue.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 08:44 PM
1

What the women have asked for is for it to come down to money. They want to be paid according to the revenue the team brings in, the men's team agrees. So you seem to agree with them also.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 08:16 PM
1

Another simple question. Do you think the US men's team should earn the same as the world cup winners?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 08:03 PM
1

There are plenty of mens teams who arent watched by as many people as watch the US womens team.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:52 PM
1

In the last few years the gap had narrowed to nothing. In football players are rewarded for their current success. Interestingly during the same time period, the mens team also made a loss, as that number doesn't take into account all revenue.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:43 PM
1

Simple question. Do you think all mens footballers should be paid more than any women footballer? Regardless of what level they play?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 07:40 PM
0

Why would players of today, male or female be paid according to how successful players 10 years ago?
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:28 PM
1

Do I really have to explain hyperbole?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 07:01 PM
2

Because the US womens team aren't asking for equal pay as the winners of the Men's world cup final. They're asking for equal pay as the US men's team. Last time I checked the US men's team weren't in the world cup final, so why should they take credit for other peoples success? Should players in the 7th tier of Indian football be paid more than the US womens team? Because more people watched the men's world cup?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 06:45 PM
-5

And both teams ran at a loss.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:41 PM
-9

4 years. The mens team also lost money over the last 11 years. As that figure didn't take into account all revenue.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:35 PM
1

Revenue sharing is common in football as a way to distribute ticket revenues, and broadcast revenues. It hasn't led to the demise of anyone who uses it.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:31 PM
-1

11 years is longer than most footballers careers, do you think players would accept that they can get pay increases because the club wasn't doing so well a decade ago? USSF report financial data every year, it would be pretty easy for them to pay the players according to how well they have been doing recently. I mean if the men's team suddenly won the 2022 world cup, I don't think anyone would think they shouldn't get a pay increase for that because it doesn't average out to much over 11 years.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:15 PM
-1

What the women actually asked for, was a revenue sharing system where both teams would be paid according to the revenue they brought it. Seems pretty fair to me.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:01 PM
1

Well then which US mens team game would you compare it to?
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:48 PM
-5

We're talking about the US mens team and the US womens team here, we can only compare what tournaments each team actually appear in. I'll compare world cup to world cup when the US mens team appear in a final.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:47 PM
-2

Because there is nothing else to compare. You can't compare the men's world cup final to the womens world cup final, because the US men's team weren't in the men's final. It's not the womens teams fault that the men aren't more successful.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:45 PM
1

Why would players of today be paid according to the revenues of 11 years ago?
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:43 PM
-21

Not any more they dont. http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/uswnt-us-soccer-revenues-lawsuit There is also other sources of revenue than ticket sales.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:41 PM
-13

I'm comparing the US men's team to the US womens team. And the best the men's team have done in quite a while is the final of the Gold Cup.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:20 PM
8

No.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:09 PM
20

What the woman actually want is a revenue sharing system, where that is what happens.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:57 PM
7

The financial loss is over 10 years. The womans revenue has only caught up to the mens over the last 4 years.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:57 PM
-7

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/uswnt-us-soccer-revenues-lawsuit
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:55 PM
19

The solution is even simpler, and is what the women asked for in the first place. Revenue sharing, where each national team is paid according to the revenue they provide USSF.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:54 PM
-10

Both teams played in the final of an international tournament this year, within days of each other. More people watched the womens final.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:52 PM
151

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/uswnt-us-soccer-revenues-lawsuit Or they can be paid according to the revenue they pull in.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:51 PM
-3

The US men's team didn't qualify for the world cup, so how much of that money do you think they got? Also, that prize money doesnt go to the players, it goes to the respective football associations, the players are paid by their football associations and their pay can be more or less than the prize money they got from FIFA.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 03:37 PM
-6

That article is about the difference in pay between the men's world cup winners, France. And the Womens world cup winners the US. No one will argue that the men's world cup brings in more money than the womens world cup, and the winners of the former should earn more than the latter. But the US men's team aren't the world cup winners are they?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 08:35 AM
-1

And what do they get for not qualifying for the world cup?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 07:43 AM
-4

What narrative? More people watched the biggest game of the womens teams seasons compared to the biggest game of the mens current season. That's not a narrative, that's a fact. The question is, do you think people should be paid according to their current performance. Personally, I do.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 07:23 AM
-11

Well when the US mens team reach a world cup final, then you can compare the two. Surely both teams should be paid according to their own success and financial pull, not the success of other members of their gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 07:00 AM
-10

More people watched the womens world cup final than watched the US mens team play in the gold cup final a few days later.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 06:28 AM
-22

Over the last few seasons, the US womens national team has pulled in similar revenue to the US mens national team. http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/uswnt-us-soccer-revenues-lawsuit
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 06:24 AM
1

More people watch mens soccer overall. But this isn't about all men vs all women. This is specially about US mens and US womens. Where the difference is much closer.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/07/19 05:56 AM
3

If you just compare the US mens team vs the US womens team, the revenue balance is much closer than the sport overall.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 02:28 PM
1

What the women earn per game with their salary is actually less than what a man would get for losing a game. Indeed the whole dual system of payment is absurd. Which is why I think the womens proposal of revenue sharing, where each team is paid according to the revenue they bring in, makes sense.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 02:22 PM
-6

Sure, but so should all the extra games the women had to play to earn it.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 12:38 PM
1

I did actually misread yes. But the comparison is still off, as the women had to play far more games to earn that money (National games and league games).
/r/MensRights30/07/19 12:32 PM
0

That's not what the title says though is it? The teams in the women's league are not the national team.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 12:17 PM
2

That's the womens national team and the womens league combined, vs only the mens national team. That's not even close to being a fair comparison.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 11:25 AM
0

Among the conclusions, which U.S. Soccer said were verified by an independent accounting firm, are that women's players were paid $34.1 million by the federation from 2010 to 2018 in salaries and bonuses (2018 the most recent fiscal year for which information was available). That also includes the National Women's Soccer League salaries paid by U.S. Soccer for national team-contracted players. Members of the men's national team were paid $26.4 million by the federation over the same period, the …
/r/MensRights30/07/19 11:05 AM
1

In the UK most people dont file for taxes at all, it's all taken automatically when you're paid. A P45 is actually for your next employer, not yourself, so they can make sure you're taxed the correct amount. Without a P45, it can take a while for HMRC to work out what you should be paying which can lead to you overpaying or underpaying. We also get a tax document at the end of the year to cover the whole year, a P60.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/19 10:32 AM
2

So you have a record of your earnings and tax paid during the year so far.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/19 05:00 AM
3

Even though this didn't happen in the UK, if it did she could be guilty of sexual activity with a child.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/19 08:53 AM
4

This didn't happen in the UK.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/07/19 11:31 PM
2

Not only have they turned an entire male class celibate ...what?
/r/MensRights28/07/19 11:14 AM
1

Your claim is not correct. Section 1a specifically states the offender is a 'he'. In UK legislation, "he" means any person. Section 4a-d states the victim must be penetrated. A woman lacks a penis to penetrate a man. When a woman rapes a man, the man is not penetrated and therefore does not qualify as a victim. Both (c) and (d) refer to person B (the victim) penetrating another person, this can be, but doesn't have to be person A (the accused)
/r/MensRights26/07/19 10:18 PM
3

It is part of legislation, its causing sexual activity without consent.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 07:58 AM
0

They would be guilty of causing sexual activity without consent. For cases where the victim is forced to penetrate either the attacker or another person, the maximum sentence is life, the same as rape. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4
/r/MensRights25/07/19 11:33 PM
-2

Remember that while forced to penetrate isnt called rape in the UK, it is a crime that has the same sentence as rape. And generally those who write laws don't care too much about the terms used in law and how the usage of the term changes over time.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 03:42 PM
1

What do you expect from r/nicegirls content?
/r/MensRights15/07/19 02:19 PM
5

Thinking everyone should have a medical procedure carried out on them because you personally needed it is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I'm glad you found a solution to your problem, but you are very much in the minority for needing it.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 09:54 AM
2

How much of the last world cup revenue did the US mens team earn?
/r/MensRights12/07/19 04:57 AM
1

the mens would have generated more revenew. Would have being the key term. I don't think that anyone would argue that 5 years ago the men's team wasn't bigger than the women's.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 07:00 PM
0

If people just watch it because its the world cup, doesn't that mean that the men's team having higher viewing figures 5 years ago during the world cup doesn't really mean much? Because it was because it was the world cup?
/r/MensRights11/07/19 06:06 PM
0

You can't really judge a teams worth based on performance 5 years ago either.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 05:50 PM
-2

A few days ago the US men's team played Mexico in the final of an international competition. How many people watched that?
/r/MensRights11/07/19 05:12 PM
2

The vaccine is offered routinely, through a school-based programme, to all males and females aged 12 to 13 years (school year 9). If you have been eligible for the vaccine but have not received it in school, you can still receive it free of charge until the age of 18, if you ask your doctor.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 04:26 PM
1

Players can try and renegotiate, yes. I'm glad we agree.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:21 PM
1

Sure I do. I also know how soccer works, players renegotiate their contracts all the time, even when they still have years left, they'd the norm.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:06 PM
0

The revenue USSF receives is what pays the players. That includes prize money yes, but its not exclusively prize money.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:04 PM
1

If they brought in the same revenue to the organisation that paid them, yes.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:02 PM
1

You don't follow soccer do you?
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:01 PM
3

It's not offered for free to women.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:00 PM
1

And since they signed that contract their value to USSF has skyrocketed. Welcome to the world of soccer contracts.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 02:34 PM
1

The point is world cup bonuses have nothing to do with it, as the womens team aren't asking for equal pay to the French world cup winning team, they're asking for equal pay to the US men's team.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 02:07 PM
10

This is false. The HPV vaccine is now offered for free to all boys and girls up to the age of 18. But it is also offered to gay men up to the age of 45. https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/hpv-vaccine-adolescents-aged-12-13-years-old The vaccine is offered routinely, through a school-based programme, to all males and females aged 12 to 13 years (school year 9). If you have been eligible for the vaccine but have not received it in school, you can still receive it free of charge until the age of …
/r/MensRights11/07/19 02:02 PM
1

There are 23 players in a world cup squad. If the $38m was just split equally between the players that would be $1.6m. Prize money is revenue for the football association, not a direct player bonus.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:53 PM
-4

The prize money was 4m. This wasn't just given to the players, it was given to USSF, the players bonuses are paid by USSF. France for example got $38m in prize money for winning the world cup. The players got about $500,000 each, of which about $330,000 was for winning the final. That's only $11.5 worth of bonuses paid to players.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:46 PM
1

I think it's very clear they want to renegotiate their contract, doing so before the contract ends is the norm in football.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:35 PM
-3

No they weren't paid for winning. USSF received a bonus for the women winning, this becomes part of the revenue for USSF, just like prize money the mens team bring in. And not all women on the womens team can sign the $100k contract. Looking at USSFs financial statements for 2018, only 4 women had guarenteed contracts.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:30 PM
4

Those are a bit more difficult to work out. But you're insane if you dont think that the US womens team aren't at least equal to the mens when it comes to commercial value. The womens world cup win was everywhere, the men just lost the final of the CONCACAF gold cup, and I had no idea they even reached the final.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:11 PM
2

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:55 PM
-9

Neither team are paid by the world cup organisers. They're paid by USSF. Also not all women get the $100k guaranteed salary. And a member of the men's team would equal that $100k in bonuses if they lost every single game.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:52 PM
-9

They brought in SLIGHTLY more in only the USA (not counting worldwide) and that was during this period where they won back to back World Cup and the men failed to make the WC. AKA, they performed better.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:44 PM
3

The womens team dominate, and the mens team are pretty mediocre. The pie might be much smaller for the womens game, but the US womens team gets a much bigger slice than what the US mens team get out of theirs.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:39 PM
-6

They don't want equal pay as the whole world cup though. They want equal pay as their US Male counterparts.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:16 PM
-1

This is about the US mens team vs the US womens team, as they're both paid by the same organisation, USSF. The mens game has more revenue overall, but the US dont get a lot of it, because they're nowhere near a top team.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:08 PM
0

But the US women's team bring in more revenue then the US men's team.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:04 PM
1

If the US women's team should be paid according to how much revenue they bring in to the USSF compared to the men's team, then they should be paid a lot more. Indeed this is what the women have asked for, a revenue sharing deal where the men and womens teams are paid according to the revenue they bring in.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:03 PM
1

If the womens team brings in the same revenue as the mens, do you think they should be paid the same?
/r/PussyPassDenied10/07/19 05:06 PM
3

If you're not washing it, it isn't clean.
/r/MensRights10/07/19 10:13 AM
1

That's what the women actually want, a revenue sharing deal where each team is paid according to the revenue they generate.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/19 05:42 AM
1

They want equal pay with the US mens team, not all mens teams.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/19 05:37 AM
1

I think we are. Crazy.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 07:38 PM
1

That's the entire world cup, not just the US mens team. Who the US womens team are asking for equal pay with.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 07:11 PM
1

Pay-for-play rates are based on historic revenue. It doesnt say that, it just says pay to play.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 06:45 PM
1

What they want is to implement a revenue sharing deal, where both teams are paid according to the revenue they generate. The mens national team have expressed their support for this.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 05:18 PM
1

It says the women rejected a pay for play deal, not a revenue sharing deal.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:51 PM
2

Players aren't paid by the world cup. They're paid by their national FAs, in this case the USSF. That article isnt about the league, its about the national teams.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:47 PM
2

That’s not what they want. They rejected that model in 2017 Source?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:39 PM
1

Gate revenue, advertisements and prize money.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:38 PM
1

They don’t. They specifically rejected that when they redid their CBA in 2017. Source?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:37 PM
1

It's a good job then that what the women want is to implement a revenue sharing system where each team is paid according to the revenue they generate.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:26 PM
1

True that's a bit more difficult to work out, but you're joking if you don't think that commercially the womens team is worth at least the same as the mens at the moment Either way it's a good job then that what the women want is to implement a revenue sharing system where each team is paid according to the revenue they generate.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:26 PM
1

National teams arent paid by the world cup though, they're paid by their national FAs
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:24 PM
1

It's a random stat that has nothing to do with the actual issue.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:16 PM
-2

Nowhere does that say its only for local games.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:15 PM
1

The US mens team are paid to play international football.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:14 PM
0

It's a good job then that what the women want is to implement a revenue sharing system where each team is paid according to the revenue they generate.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:13 PM
1

3 years, not 1
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:09 PM
1

Even including that, the difference in pay in much more than the difference in revenue. Because here's the important thing, the women arent actually asking for the exact same pay as the men, they're asking to implement a revenue sharing system where each team gets paid according to how much revenue it generates.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 03:42 PM
0

The above link is since 2016, not just for a single year.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 03:16 PM
3

So? They performed badly, and so lost out on revenue.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 03:15 PM
0

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:41 PM
2

There was a mens world cup in 2018, it does cover a cycle. The men also took part in a copa america in 2016, and a gold cup in 2017.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:31 PM
-2

But they do generate more revenue than the men who they want to be paid the same as. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:22 PM
2

How much they make at club level isn't really important as this is to do with international games. Currently the WNT earn slightly more then the MNT, but the players of the WNT earn far less. The request of the WNT is to pay each according to the revenue their teams bring in, this is about as equal as you can get.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:21 PM
-2

, while your link refers to US domestic soccer games. No it doesn't, it about the national teams.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:08 PM
2

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:03 PM
1

The individual breakdowns are part of the USSF AMG book of reports.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 01:31 PM
1

Did you know that male soccer players don't get paid if they don't play in a game? Women get a 100k base salary by simply being on the team. Source?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 01:02 PM
2

The USSFs financial records are made public every year. People have known for a long time that the women's team is outperforming the men's financially. You can see them all on the USSF website here; https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/financial-information
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:47 PM
0

That compares all mens teams vs all womens teams. The US womens team arent asking for the same pay as France, they're asking for the same pay as the US mens team. Who earn significantly less money than France.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:37 PM
2

The source is the USSFs own financial statements. Again, literally says that in the article.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:32 PM
2

You perhaps should have read the link past the title. Literally the first paragraph. U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:26 PM
6

How much teams in Europe get paid is up to their own FAs. Players aren't paid by FIFA, they're paid by their national FAs. The US womens team want to be paid the same as the US mens team, and considering they bring in more revenue for the USSF, who pays both teams. How is this request unreasonable?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:23 PM
2

The mens team didnt qualify for the last world cup though. So how much more the mens world cup makes than the womens world cup is pretty irrelevant here, because the US mens team didnt get any of it.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:19 PM
-5

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:15 PM
-6

But in the case of the US womens team vs the US mens team, the women generate more revenue.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:13 PM
0

Prior to two world cups, a men's and a women's. And why do they need their own federation? When they could just be paid according to the revenue they bring in? And that js only the most pushed and succesful team in womens national vs an irrelevant team. Equal pay is stupid. Then why is the irrelevant team paid more?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 12:05 PM
-1

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 11:57 AM
11

The US mens team didnt qualify for the last world cup. So the bonus given to the womens team will be much more than the mens.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 11:56 AM
-9

The US womens team have every right to call for equal pay, as they produce just as much if not more revenue than the US mens team does for USSF.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 11:47 AM
7

UEFA also take money generated by the biggest football teams and invests into smaller leagues. Taking money from the wealthiest leagues and investing it to support smaller ones has been part of its operation for decades.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 11:00 AM
132

The players aren't paid by the competition organisers though, they're paid by their national football associations. A fairer comparison would be how much money the men and womens team brings in for their FAs.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 09:52 AM
1

I believe the deal was she'd get one album back for every album she made. If that's true or not, it's still not her getting the chance to buy them off the label.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/19 09:49 PM
1

She wasn't given an offer to buy them. She was given an offer to renew her record contract, and part of that contract was for her to earn back the rights to her older albums.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/19 04:39 PM
18

Title is slightly incorrect isn't it? She was never in the position to purchase the rights, they were just part of the offer the label presented her.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/19 01:07 PM
-4

The only thing you're missing is the blatant hyperbole.
/r/MensRights28/06/19 08:53 PM
1

The crux of the issue is you're still ignoring the fact that she intoxicated him to the point where he had little to no awareness of what was happening. Incapable of making decisions. It doesn't say this anywhere in the article.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 04:50 AM
1

Not in Queensland.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 04:48 AM
-8

If you lived in a place where the age of consent was 16, yes.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 05:04 PM
26

The age of consent in Queensland is 16.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 05:03 PM
2

Not according to the evidence given in court.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 04:38 PM
5

Not in Queensland it seems. Some Australian states have this, but Queensland wasn't part of the list.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 04:11 PM
-8

Yes, he can. He's above the age of consent. That's what the age of consent is.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 04:02 PM
-7

Because she put him under influence, which is illegal at that age Not in Queensland.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 03:33 PM
-6

I'm pretty sure the law is the same for men and women.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 03:30 PM
4

Any proof of such a teacher being found guilty in Queensland?
/r/MensRights19/06/19 03:29 PM
-1

He was manipulated into doing it Not according to the law in Queensland.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 03:06 PM
3

This is in Australia, not the UK. And in Queensland, the age of consent is 16, I also dont think that Queensland has a different age of consent for teachers and students. So legal I guess.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 02:30 PM
3

But they did respect his gender "identity".
/r/MensRights18/06/19 06:15 PM
1

I don't think I've heard any stories of parents facing a negative backlash for giving a child up for adoption. If anything I would say that abortion faces a much worse reaction.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 09:03 AM
1

How people who do it are looked upon is irrelevant. Parents are not forced to look after children they don't want or can't look after.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 08:26 AM
1

No but she is still responsible for being the baby's mother. She can give it up for adoption, or she can leave it in the care of the father.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 08:16 AM
4

Why is it horrible to expect a woman to give birth when she didn't abort in the 6 month window she had to abort her baby, yet it's not horrible to expect parents to take care of their disabled child for the rest of their lives? Parents can give up children for adoption if they can't look after them.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 08:15 AM
1

The woman had 2 training camps. This is also from the 2016 AGM. I think more up to date information should be used for the current situation. But even according to this, the womens team are underpaid according to the revenue they bring in are they not?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 06:27 PM
1

I do apologise, I misunderstood what Olympic victory tour was. So it was 27, training camps are not games.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 06:15 PM
0

According to that, the womens team had a revenue of $17.5m and played 17 games. And then mens had a revenue of $9m and played 12 games.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 06:06 PM
1

Link?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 05:49 PM
0

The US mens team didn't make the world cup. So how much money it made is pretty irrelevant.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 05:03 PM
-6

And this is exactly why the US womens real should be paid the same, if not more than the mens team. The womans team are more valuable to the USSF than the mens team are.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 05:01 PM
1

How much does the US mens team bring in compared to the womens?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 04:58 PM
-2

The US mens team weren't at the last world cup though. So the womans team earned significantly more in their respective world cups.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 04:55 PM
1

How much revenue does the womens team bring in for USSF compared to the mens team though?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 04:44 PM
-9

"Support"
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 07:03 AM
3

It's not really false if its true that she was told she was infertile by a doctor.
/r/MensRights08/06/19 07:30 PM
39

Isn't the whole point of safe words because at times it isn't.
/r/MensRights08/06/19 05:19 PM
8

You guys do realise that Margaret Atwood doesn't call herself a feminist, rejects calling any of her work feminist, and faced backlash for supporting due process in the night if MeToo?
/r/MensRights07/06/19 06:47 AM
2

So you don't think that cults are a thing?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 08:20 AM
2

So you think that Tex Watson was the primary influence of the group. As he was the one who did most of the actual killing and telling others what to do.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 07:47 AM
10

...did you just try and underplay Manson's role in the Manson family?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 07:30 AM
8

So why did she apply and what makes it a pussy pass attempt?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 06:55 AM
17

Applying for parole is an attempt at a pussy pass these days?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 06:35 AM
22

So you make it sound like illegal immigrants (what illegal immigrants have to do with this I don't know) only get 12 years for raping and killing someone. When its actually 2 different events, death by drunk driving which got 12 years, and rape which actually got 20 years.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/19 06:28 AM
5

Because there's a difference between being found not guilty, and proving it was a false accusation.
/r/MensRights31/05/19 10:33 AM
-2

Well you can try and get pregnant if you want. Not sure how far you'll get.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 02:22 PM
1

Nothing there says it's only for women.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 11:25 AM
1

I don't see how you can make someone go through 9 months of pregnancy and after-birth recuperation against her wishes. Who has said you should be able to? It's a womans choice to abort or not. But what if they don't want to, but don't be a mother, should they be able to surrender their rights and let the father raise the child?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 11:24 AM
-1

Abortion is not the female equivalent. What do you think should happen if the man wanted the child, but the woman didn't. Should abortion be the only option for her, and just tough luck to the man, or should there be the option for the woman to carry the child through pregnancy, and then be absolved of all legal rights and responsibilities afterwards and allow the man to raise the child?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:50 AM
1

Citation that woman can go to the courts to absolve themselves of parental responsibility?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:31 AM
1

So judges wont absolve people of their financial responsibilities? You need to keep your story straight.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:18 AM
1

So parental surrender exists. Problem solved then right?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:13 AM
1

And woman don't give up their financial rights either. Legally the situations are the same. The reality might be different, but legally it's the same. Do you not think that legally both parents should be able to give up all rights and responsibilities, even financial ones?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 10:03 AM
1

Adoption is the child leaving both parents. And a father can also sign his rights away can he not? Neither of those options are exclusive to women.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:42 AM
0

Yes, as long as a parent hasn't removed themselves from the situation legally, financial support is part of the responsibility of having a child.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:40 AM
2

Well it took a while, but we got there in the end.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:30 AM
2

So you agree that both parents should be able to absolve themselves from legal responsibilities via parental surrender.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:27 AM
1

Under what legal process can a woman absolve themselves of the legal rights and responsibilities of being a parent?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:23 AM
1

You didnt answer my question. A woman is pregnant. The father wants the child and the mother doesn't... Should abortion be the only choice?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:21 AM
0

What do you think should happen if the man wanted the child, but the woman didn't. Should abortion be the only option for her, and just tough luck to the man, or should there be the option for the woman to carry the child through pregnancy, and then be absolved of all legal rights and responsibilities afterwards and allow the man to raise the child?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:17 AM
1

Neither sides should be able to say no the child after it has given birth. Adoption is a thing though. What do you think should happen if the man wanted the child, but the woman didn't. Should abortion be the only option for her, and just tough luck to the man, or should there be the option for the woman to carry the child through pregnancy, and then be absolved of all legal rights and responsibilities afterwards and allow the man to raise the child?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:16 AM
0

What are you talking about Parental surrender. Please try and keep up.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:08 AM
0

Abortion is bye bye baby for both parents. Parental surrender is bye bye responsibility for one parent. If a woman for whatever reason doesnt want an abortion, they should also have the option of parental surrender, and allow the father to raise the child if they so wish. Abortion cannot be equal, because only one parent gets pregnant, parental surrender can and should be equal.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:06 AM
0

Abortion should not be the only choice for women.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 09:04 AM
1

Yes men should, so should women. Men should be able to leave the child in the care of the mother, and women should be able to leave the child in the care of the father. Parental surrender should be available to both parents.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 08:53 AM
0

Abortion isn't the female equivalent of parental surrender. Woman have the right to choose to abort or not. And both parents should have the the right to parental surrender or not.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 08:51 AM
-4

I didnt really word that well. I do think that parental surrender should be a thing. A child is both parents responsibility, but both parents should be able to waive that responsibility and the rights that come with it with parental surrender. However this is separate to abortion. Abortion is neither a reason why parental surrender should exist, nor is it the equivalent to parental surrender for mothers.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 08:33 AM
-11

Which is why abortion isn't a reason as to why parental surrender should be a thing. Parental surrender should be a thing yes, but it should be a thing for both parents. Abortion isn't the female equivalent.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 08:08 AM
-13

Yes it is. A child is a responsibility for both people involved in bringing it into the world. That the process involves using the body of only one of those involved is a fact of nature we can't change and can't ignore. And regardless of context I'll always believe that anyone capable of making the decision has to right to decide how and what their body is used for.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 07:59 AM
-20

Because men don't get pregnant. Life isn't always equal, you would think those here would understand this.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 07:25 AM
7

It was Soviet Russia. Everyone was disposable.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 10:30 PM
0

Pretty sure this is in Michigan, where the age of consent is usually 16.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 08:55 PM
4

Does the gun make it rape? Genuine question, where I am rape is the actual act, threatening it would be a different crime.
/r/MensRights25/05/19 01:26 PM
-1

Is demanding sex covered under Rape?
/r/MensRights25/05/19 01:01 PM
2

You do know that you can refuse to do something and also enjoy it right?
/r/MensRights15/05/19 08:55 AM
2

Monica Rambeau. Aka Maria's daughter in the film.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:54 AM
17

There has already been a black female Captain Marvel, so its canon. Who was actually Captain Marvel before Carol Danvers, but is just a child in the film oddly enough.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:17 PM
5

I don't think anyone wants to ban circumcision, they just want to allow people to decide for themselves if they want it or not. You want to cut off part of your penis, knock yourself out.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 07:13 AM
1

In this case, being at a teenager party should have been sufficient for any responsible adult to suspect that a young looking person may be too young. If it was a party full of 13-14 year olds, yes. if it was a party of 18-19 year olds, not so much. Do you know which it was? Because I don't.
/r/MensRights06/05/19 08:51 AM
8

I'm pretty sure these aren't done by the same people. But if you want to know why this happened, it's pretty simple. Cardi B performing makes people money, Notch showing up to an event doesn't. Not like she's the only performer who has had terrible behaviour ignored.
/r/MensRights03/05/19 09:57 AM
1

However forcing a man to penetrate his rapist isn't defined as rape - merely sexual assault / molestation. Its Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent Which carries the same punishment as rape.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 06:40 AM
1

Instead they can force to penetrate, which carries the same punishment.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 06:37 AM
1

Do you think the man in the article I listed recieved fair treatment from the court?
/r/MensRights02/05/19 05:00 AM
2

You've read a single newspaper article, to claim that you know what the facts of the case are is laughable. We don't know anything about what was shown in court. And men also use this defence, so what is it then?
/r/MensRights02/05/19 05:00 AM
1

The facts that it was a teenage birthday party Teenage is 13-19. Was everyone else at the party 13-14, or were they 18-19? Truth is we don't know, so don't try stating the facts about something you don't actually know.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 04:56 AM
2

It says she knew roughly how old he was, and that was a quote from the prosecutor. I can't really comment too much since I don't know any of the details disclosed during the case, but I can only assume that she was able to convince the court that roughly means she thought he was older.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 11:50 PM
2

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042
/r/MensRights01/05/19 11:09 PM
6

So if someone lies about their age and believably so, you're just shit out of luck?
/r/MensRights01/05/19 03:56 PM
6

I wouldn't call it an issue. I think there should be some leeway if the victim is believed to be above the age of consent.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 02:47 PM
12

In the UK, if you have sex with someone aged 13-15, you can be found innocent if you can show that you reasonably believed they were 16 or older. This applies to both men and women.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 02:30 PM
3

Only applies for the ages of 13-15.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 01:51 PM
1

That person was still found guilty, he just wasnt given jail time. I didnt give the boundary at 13, the law does. Sex with someone aged 12 or lower is always rape, regardless of what age you think they are. But aged 13-15 you can be found innocent if you can show you reasonably believed they were 16 or older.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 01:08 PM
5

Like this? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042
/r/MensRights01/05/19 12:45 PM
-53

Under 13 theres no defence for believing they are 16 or above. Although it has been known to be used as a mitigating circumstance when it comes to sentencing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042
/r/MensRights01/05/19 12:44 PM
7

That's how the law is written. The victim not only has to be under 16, but the accused also has to not reasonably believe that they're over 16.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 12:33 PM
1

The companies policy can't take away what you're entitled to by statute. In the UK fathers can take 2 weeks of Paternal leave, and both parents have 50 weeks of shared parental leave to split between them as they see fit.
/r/MensRights30/04/19 10:00 AM
50

In South Africa I could imagine that.
/r/MensRights26/04/19 01:34 PM
2

YO!
/r/MensRights16/04/19 12:37 PM
16

So what does that make us?
/r/MensRights16/04/19 07:18 AM
30

Watch Spaceballs.
/r/MensRights16/04/19 06:24 AM
2

It says in another article on the subject that one of the things that they'd accept was a deed poll that shows you've changed your name. So not quite just a picture of you in a bra.
/r/MensRights14/04/19 08:04 PM
1

This is an official document that legally recognises a person’s ‘acquired’ gender, and requires proof that the person has been living as that gender for at least two years. So it requires proof.
/r/MensRights14/04/19 06:29 PM
3

Yes. We call them drink-drivers.
/r/MensRights13/04/19 09:11 PM
8

Same thing that makes Male teachers want to fuck students too I imagine.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/04/19 07:02 AM
28

She's white though.
/r/MensRights09/04/19 05:11 PM
1

That's not how free speech works.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/19 05:45 PM
0

And Google have the same limitations, but their right to refuse service is the same as any other business.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/19 12:21 PM
-1

Google have the right to refuse service just like any other business.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/19 11:54 AM
-1

Yes, Google are well within their rights to do that, and what speech is NY suppressing in central park.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/19 11:36 AM
0

Aren't Google well within their rights to decide who or what they want on their platform?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/04/19 08:23 AM
27

So a bulletin board then.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 07:11 PM
-1

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 08:03 PM
-2

The right to control something absolutely includes the right to decide who or what is allowed inside it or allowed to use it for any purpose.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:52 PM
-1

The right to control something includes controlling what is allowed inside it.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:49 PM
11

Personally I think that a person's right to control what happens to their body takes precedence over another person's right to life. Otherwise it would be fine to force people to give blood or donate a kidney or bone marrow etc, if the purpose was to save another person's life. But that's just my view of the matter, others may be different.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 06:47 PM
1

Since when was a child it's mother's body? Did I miss something in biology class?
/r/MensRights24/03/19 05:44 PM
-2

Yes, a woman got raped and stabbed. And her first thought was this was the perfect opportunity to falsely accuse someone else. You actually have a problem if you think that this was the woman's fault and not the police.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 08:53 AM
2

I wonder how many other men are in prison right now because of her racism. Fixed it.
/r/MensRights23/03/19 07:52 PM
1

Are you trying to say she wasn't actually raped and stabbed and made the whole thing up? The actual evidence of a serial rapists fingerprints in the house that the police just happens to ignore was just a huge coincidence?
/r/MensRights23/03/19 07:51 PM
6

Or defamation.
/r/MensRights22/03/19 02:45 PM
4

It's contempt of court. Isn't that basically always reduced when the offender promises to behave?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/03/19 03:47 PM
2

Contempt of court.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/03/19 03:46 PM
5

This sub is becoming the MRM equivalent of SRS.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 06:59 AM
6

You do realise this is hyperbole right?
/r/MensRights12/03/19 06:47 AM
1

I think they're horrific, not trashy.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 11:20 PM
1

Because they're the mod of trashy.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 02:47 PM
-6

Do you think it's r/trashy material? Because I don't. Trashy is something we laugh at and make fun of. Nothing is funny about false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 02:33 PM
-9

Or perhaps they just don't think it's applicable to r/trashy.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 12:08 PM
2

A man working all day, while his wife also works, cooks, cleans, and looks after the kids? Yeah, that would never happen.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 07:05 AM
3

She's an author, and a journalist.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 06:47 AM
5

Why is she putting so much thought into what it would feel like if her son fucked her?
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:52 PM
1

Those who would be unsuitable will just be rejected, unless things get more desperate, in which case they'd be thrown in anyways. A draft isn't like mandatory service, it's not something everyone takes part in, in some capacity so they've fulfilled a civic duty, it's a last option for when the military just needs more soldiers. If a draft occurred, the vast majority of those drafted will be sent to combat.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/02/19 09:09 AM
1

If it ever came to an actual draft, 99% of those drafted are going into combat.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/02/19 08:20 AM
4

What if he just wants to deport them?
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/19 09:56 AM
2

The UKs argument is that she also has Bangladeshi citizenship. In effect all that's happened is the UK has passed the problem over to another country, and a country where she has never actually been. What will actually happen will depend on the Bangladeshi response to this.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/02/19 10:11 AM
1

It's against international laws to make someone stateless by removing their citizenship.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/02/19 08:37 AM
-3

How do you think citizenship works?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/19 07:55 PM
-3

She was a UK citizen at the time the kid was born. If you're born to a UK citizen who was born in the UK, then you are also a UK citizen regardless of where you were born.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/19 07:19 PM
0

A country that follows international law. You can't revoke someone's citizenship if that would leave someone stateless.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/19 06:06 PM
-1

The kid will already be a UK citizen.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/19 06:04 PM
2

Actually, the US not only spends more money per person for healthcare then another countries, it also spends more tax dollars per person for healthcare too. Either way, it's more expensive in the US.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/19 06:09 AM
1

There's a legal process you have to go through to renounce your citizenship. Simply saying that you renounce it, doesn't count. I highly doubt she has actually renounced her citizenship.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/19 01:17 AM
1

All the human rights act did was allow UK courts to see cases regarding the ECHR, rather than having to go to courts in Strasbourg. It didn't introduce anything that didn't already exist in UK law for nearly 50 years beforehand, it just made it easier for people to take issues to court.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 10:45 AM
1

The country they'll send the kid back to I imagine. Your citizen, take it back.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:08 AM
1

Syria doesn't have jus soli citizenship. Just being born there doesn't make you a citizen.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 11:49 PM
1

Why should that country deal with a baby who isn't a citizen? I imagine they'd just send it back to a county it is a citizen of.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:36 PM
1

I assume you mean the European Convention on Human Rights. Which the UK signed up to in 1950.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:29 PM
-3

To which Syria would reply to ask why it had to accept a child that isn't a Syrian citizen.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:20 PM
2

If she manages to return, she will.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:12 PM
-1

Who has ever denied that?
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:12 PM
2

Since when was letting someone who is a citizen return a free pass? If she returns she will be arrested, but if we consider ourselves a country that respects rights, we can't take away people's rights just because we don't like them.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 08:10 PM
4

Then you'd probably struggle to take any civil action against them.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 02:27 PM
8

Are you sure about that? At least in the UK, parking on someone's land without permission would (For the most part) fall under trespassing, and be a civil matter, the police wouldn't be interested. Whereas forcefully removing someone's car, even from your own property would be a criminal matter.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 01:00 PM
1

If you think that someone is drunk enough to the point that they can't say yes or no, do you think that them getting that drunk is automatically sayibg yes to any sexual activity?
/r/MensRights07/02/19 06:47 AM
-3

"If she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was a part of her choice,” So if she's so drunk she can't say no, then it's ok. Are we really saying that's an ok position to take?
/r/MensRights06/02/19 12:23 PM
-8

The gay frogs are gonna get ya!
/r/PussyPassDenied31/01/19 08:17 AM
3

I'm going to guess that this isn't the only crime the man was connected to.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/19 08:07 AM
3

He was charged a year earlier, so I'm guessing his crimes go beyond this case.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/01/19 09:26 PM
1

So do you think a pilot would be blameless if a random passenger crashed a plane? Much like on a plane, whoever is in charge of a boat, is legally responsible for what happens on board, and the safety and welfare of those on board. He was on board, and he allowed her to take over and drive the boat, legally is he respobsible for what happens as a result of that. He is also legally responsible for the upkeep of the boat, and is legally responsible for what happens as a result of the boat not bein…
/r/MensRights27/01/19 09:46 AM
1

He would have received a much lighter sentence too, if he hadn't skipped bail and actually attended court.
/r/MensRights26/01/19 08:08 AM
1

If a pilot let a random passenger take control of a plane and it crashed, would the pilot be blameless?
/r/MensRights26/01/19 07:43 AM
6

If the woman owned the boat and the man drove it drunk and killed himself do you think she would be charged with gross negligence manslaughter? Yes.
/r/MensRights25/01/19 06:06 PM
3

Manslaughter, not murder.
/r/MensRights25/01/19 06:02 PM
7

They're agreeing that it was sexual assault.
/r/MensRights25/01/19 10:19 AM
14

This isn't an incel sub.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/19 08:53 AM
1

The UK has a thing called Parental responsibility, only people who have parental responsibility are responsible for paying for a child, and that includes child support. Unless you're married to the mother, the only way a man has parental responsibility for a child is if his name is on the birth certificate.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 05:10 AM
1

I think concern is justified since they've been caught doing it a few times.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 05:48 PM
0

Paternity tests are not healthcare.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 05:40 PM
2

Not in the UK.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 05:16 PM
2

Ok then, say I have a child, can't afford the test. Am I just out of luck when it comes to legal rights that come with being a father?
/r/MensRights13/01/19 05:00 PM
2

Some people want it, some people don't. If you want a DNA test to confirm a kid is yours then get one.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:38 PM
1

Which is why most new fathers don't have £100 to waste.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:36 PM
2

I'm not really being paranoid when the UK government has gotten into legal trouble several times for keeping DNA samples for longer than they were allowed to.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:35 PM
3

Data privacy or not, which the UK does have, but didn't stop them from keeping hold of peoples DNA samples for longer than they were legally allowed to. Mandatory DNA testing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Men shouldn't have to pay a fee to have a test to be legally considered a parent. The UK system as is, works pretty well, anyone who wants to confirm paternity can get a test for it as long as they have parental responsibility over the child.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:28 PM
3

The UK government had been told several times in the past by European courts that it had to destroy DNA samples on file. Generally the answer was always "Yeah, we'll do that soon" And I know they don't have a record of a DNA test for me, because I've never had a DNA test before.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 03:44 PM
8

I trust a one night stand saying the baby is yours more than I trust any organise in the UK saying it will dispose of DNA results. I also don't think men should pay a £100 fee to be a father.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 02:54 PM
4

Not in the UK it isn't.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 02:49 PM
4

So mandatory DNA collection for the entire population? Thanks, but no.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 02:41 PM
5

In the UK unless you're married, the father has to be there to have his name on the birth certificate.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 01:08 PM
3

You can just run around taking DNA samples of random children. So you need legal parental responsibility for a child to carry out the test.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 01:00 PM
1

The question was completely unrelated to anything else. you asked yourself an irellevant question, answered it, and acted like that made your point. I can only assume form this that you think that defamation per se means you only need to show damages to prove guilt. Which quite clearly isn't true. If it was, everyone accused of a crime would sue.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 01:15 PM
1

I have looked back, and everything you posted that was an opinion from a lawyer was regarding defamation per se. I don't know how many times it's needs to be pointed out to you that the only difference when it comes to defamation per se, is that damages don't need to be proven. Once again, if everyone who accuses another person of a crime is guilty of defamation, then everyone accused of a crime would sue. Everyone.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 12:43 PM
1

No you haven't, You've shown lawyers talking about proving damages, which has never been in question. But proving damages is only a part of proving defamation. Just because you can prove damages, doesn't mean you have proven defamation.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 11:22 AM
1

Do you agree with this? Perhaps in your country the laws are different. Where I am, if you accuse somebody of a crime and you can't prove it, and your accusation has caused harm, you are guilty of defamation and can be sued for damages. So if someone is accused of a crime, and not found guilty, the accuser is guilty of defamation? You should agree, you said it. And if so, why do lawyers not agree? Such as here. https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if-you-are-found-not-guilty-of-a-crime-can-you-sue…
/r/MensRights10/01/19 07:18 AM
1

Do you think all those people accused of a crime can just win a defamation lawsuit with no real effort on their part?
/r/MensRights09/01/19 08:07 PM
1

Quote the exact text of mine that supports your assertion or do not reference previous statements. Here Perhaps in your country the laws are different. Where I am, if you accuse somebody of a crime and you can't prove it, and your accusation has caused harm, you are guilty of defamation and can be sued for damages. So why doesn't everyone sue? If it was as easy as you claim, every person accused of a crime should have lawyers throwing themselves at them, it's basically a free win.
/r/MensRights09/01/19 06:56 PM
1

Places where defamation is a criminal act are by far the minority. Ah, trying this garbage are you? I did not stipulate that a concluded investigation translates to defamation. Nice try. That is exactly what you have said, several times This is from an earlier post of yours; False accusation of a crime is considered to be defamatory per se because it is inherently harmful. So an accusation of a crime meets the requirement for proof of damages, and you have said that any accusation is considered …
/r/MensRights09/01/19 04:33 PM
1

Once again, Civil and criminal courts have different standards of evidence. According to you, anyone who accused someone of a crime in which either the investigation is ended, or the accused is found not guilty, is guilty of defamation. Defamation would be the majority of all civil cases, and they would all win, with no effort required on behalf of the plaintiff. We clearly don't live in that world.
/r/MensRights09/01/19 02:26 PM
1

See how it works? Yes, he has enough evidence to prove in a civil court that the claim was fake. It even says in the article that the police investigation showed that there was no sexual contact between them. That's evidence towards the accusation being false. Considering he was never charged with anything, let alone found not guilty in court, I don't see how this backs up your claim that a not guilty verdict is automatically false in a defamation case.
/r/MensRights09/01/19 05:56 AM
1

Everything you posted was in regards to proving damages, not proving if a statement was false or not, the word damages is in pretty much every part you highlighted. And yes, in certain situations, someone suing another person for defamation doesn't have to prove to the courts that they have been damaged by the claim. but they still have to prove everything else, just like any other case. https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html First, the plaintif…
/r/MensRights09/01/19 01:35 AM
1

So you believe that Defamation is the only criminal or civil case where the burden of proof is on the defendant? I think I'm going to need some sort of source to back this up.
/r/MensRights09/01/19 12:41 AM
1

Ok. In a trial, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. And in a defamation case, The plaintiff is the person claiming the statement is false. They have to show the statement is false.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 09:31 PM
1

Making an accusation that cannot be proven true is defacto a false accusation in a defamation case. No it's not. The law doesn't work like that, a not guilty verdict is not the same as the accusation being false, it's simply that it it couldn't be proven that you did it. This is very important for the accused, it means that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 05:04 PM
1

Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms someone's reputation. Not just a statement that harms reputation, a false statement, so the statement has to be shown to be false. And like anything else, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim of defamation, they have to show it's a false statement, and that it harmed their reputation. Otherwise everyone who has ever been found not guilty of a crime could sue those who accused them for defamation.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 04:35 PM
1

That's not how defamation works. Defamation per se means that the remarks are inherently damaging, so damages don't need to be proven by the injured party. The statement still needs to be proven false.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 03:58 PM
1

That is regarding proving that damages occurred. There are two parts of a defamation case, proving that the statement was false, and proving that you were damaged by the statement. Even in the situations described above where damages don't need to proven, the statement still needs to be proven false.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 03:53 PM
1

And for that, actual malice needs to be proven, which is notoriously difficult to prove, you basically need a confession. It would be similar to proving perjury or perverting the course of justice in the UK, very difficult.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:53 PM
1

If there was evidence that she committed a crime, then yes she should go to prison.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:52 PM
1

Because the crimes involved are pretty difficult to claim without strong evidence.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:39 PM
1

Defamation isn't a criminal action it's a civil wrong. And again is a recourse that already exists.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:17 PM
0

So a recourse that already exists. Police will know if they will have the evidence to charge a false accusation case.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 01:05 PM
1

So what do you suggest other than what is the current recourse available?
/r/MensRights08/01/19 10:29 AM
1

So you think that because the crime is bad, innocent until proven guilty should no longer apply? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing we argue against around here?
/r/MensRights08/01/19 09:29 AM
0

They have the same recourse as any one else who has been found not guilty of a crime has.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 05:15 AM
1

Who said it was ok? But the law works under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty, and that applies to everyone, even those who accuse others.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 01:12 AM
-2

Courts don't find evidence, investigations do, which they have already carried out.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 05:21 PM
-3

The article doesn't say she committed any offence. Not guilty doesn't automatically mean the accuser made up the accusation, such a claim also needs to be proven.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 03:42 PM
2

A link that has one sentence about the staff members who made the accusations. The link you posted focuses far more on the accusers than the media has.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 07:52 AM
2

Why not link to actual media reports about this so we can see what they actually focus on?
/r/MensRights03/01/19 07:40 AM
1

What harsher charge could they have gone for?
/r/MensRights01/01/19 07:32 PM
1

Nope you said in 29 states. You did not mentoin indiana Erm. In Indiana, and in 29 other states It's literally there, second word. And I never said that minor only applies to age of consent, I said it applies to several different laws.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 08:15 PM
0

In Indiana and 29 other states... So 1 (Indiana) plus 29... 1 + 29 = 30
/r/MensRights31/12/18 07:59 PM
0

I didn't say it was every state, I said it was 30, which is a majority of states. You have been using the term minor wrong, using it only to refer to someone over the age of majority. It does not only mean that. Just accept it and move on.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 07:48 PM
0

In Indiana, and in 29 other states, sex with a 16 year old isn't sex with a minor. That's not rhetoric, it's fact.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 07:06 PM
0

The fact is consent laws have nothing to do with tge classification of a minor. Yes they do. Laws define 'Minor' however is relevant to the law. That's why you can be a minor at age 20 if you're talking about drinking laws. I'm bringing up drinking laws because it's an example of how the definition of minor you are using is not the only definition used. Here is the Indiana law regarding sex with a minor. https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2017/title-35/article-42/chapter-4/section-35-42-4-9/ I…
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:32 PM
0

Says someone constantly trying to talk about something not related to the story. The fact is, according the Indiana consent laws, this teen wasn't a minor.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:59 PM
0

All states define minor differently spending on what law they're talking about. You can stop being a minor in the context of consent laws at 16, but continue being a minor in the context of drinking laws until you're 21.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:43 PM
0

'Minor' just means someone who is under the age of x. And so can change based on location and context. So in most states, when it comes to sexual activity, a minor is someone under the age of 16. In all states when it comes to drinking, a minor is someone under the age of 21.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:20 PM
0

Only 12 states have the age of consent of 18. That's less than the 30 that are 16. Most states have 16 as the age of consent.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 04:06 PM
0

All I'm doing is literally telling you what the laws are. A charge of intimidation would be incredibly weak, and would be thrown out easily, "we're both dead if x happens" is a pretty common phrase. 30 states have the age of consent at 16. That is most states.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 03:51 PM
0

No, with any other consenting adult. If this woman wasn't covered by the seduction of a child law, then it would have been perfectly legal for her to sleep with this teen. That's how ages of consent work.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 03:31 PM
0

30 US states have 16 as the age of consent, as do a lot of other countries. Plenty of places believe that 16 is old enough to give consent. They probably didn't charge her with intimidation because they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to cause the harm she threatened Rather than it just being "my husband will kill us if he finds out", which it sounds more like. Easier to go for the easier to prove charge.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 03:17 PM
0

The age of consent in Indiana is 16. This woman literally cannot be found guilty of having sex with a minor, because the kid was above the age that crime applies to.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 02:34 PM
0

In Indiana, child seduction requires the victim to be above the age of 16, and below the age of 18. https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-42-4-7.html So the teen in question was between 16 and 18. Also in Indiana, a person commits sexual contact or sexual exposure with a minor, if the victim is less than 16 years old. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/indiana-law/indiana-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html In Indiana this teen is not considered a minor.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 01:17 PM
0

In Indiana, sexual exposure to a minor has to be with someone under the age of 16, For sexual contact with a minor, again it has to be with someone under the age of 16. Literally all we know about the teen involved, is that they were between the age of 16 and 18. So you want her to be charged with crimes she hasn't committed.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:18 AM
0

Investigators said Wilson at one point told the boy that if their affair was discovered, they would both be killed, reported 14News. It's unclear what she meant by that. That's not what I'd call a death threat. What exactly do you think she should be charged with if not seduction of a child?
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:03 AM
0

For seduction of a child, the child has to be between 16 and 18, and the age of consent in Indiana is 16.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:59 AM
0

For a child seduction charge the teen has to be above the age of consent of 16 in Indiana. So he was not mentally unable to give consent.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:54 AM
1

Plenty of men get charged with child seduction. https://eu.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/2018/06/27/carmel-contracts-man-charged-child-seduction/734270002/ https://fox59.com/2018/10/03/franklin-community-high-school-choir-teacher-charged-with-child-seduction/ https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Indiana-teacher-arrested-for-child-seduction-492504201.html https://www.abc57.com/news/substitute-teacher-assistant-coach-charged-with-child-seduction Those are all just from the last few mo…
/r/MensRights31/12/18 05:52 AM
1

That's not how the law works, she committed a crime, so she is punished for that crime.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 11:13 PM
1

This wasn't even statutory rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 10:04 PM
3

That's the maximum for the crime she was charged with.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 10:03 PM
23

So she's charged with seduction of a child, not statutory rape, which means the teen was over the age of consent.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 01:34 PM
25

No link to the actual story?
/r/MensRights30/12/18 01:10 PM
-2

So she didn't make any police report, the school did. Even if she did make the report, a false report actually has to be proven false too, not just dropped with no charges. Like it or not, the idea of innocent until proven guilty also applies here.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 11:31 AM
-8

From the sounds of this article everything went through the school, it makes no mention of any police report.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 09:41 AM
1

Arrested for what?
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:53 AM
4

You can go to the website and fill out the form to say you don't need a TV licence. Or you can just ignore them.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 01:37 AM
2

You can still have a TV if you don't pay the TV licence, you just can't use it to watch any live TV broadcasts, or the BBC or ITV catch up services. So Netflix, Amazon etc are perfectly fine.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 01:35 AM
4

I guess that depends where it is.
/r/MensRights25/12/18 04:42 PM
4

In the UK they couldn't tow anyways, parking enforcement on private land is pretty much toothless in the UK as the company has to take drivers to court to get them to pay up, which costs them money.
/r/MensRights25/12/18 04:39 PM
3

The second paragraph. It's also repeated later on.
/r/MensRights23/12/18 02:42 PM
1

So am I. You can't even answer one question, if you really are naive enough to think what you've been writing. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it soon.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 04:18 PM
1

Getting really boring now. But ok, I'll humour you for a minute, answer my question and I'll answer any follow up questions you have.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 04:02 PM
2

For my actions of asking you a question? You're getting quite boring now, if you can't or don't want to answer my question, just say so.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 03:48 PM
2

Wow, you really don't want to answer that question do you. Well from that I can only assume that you know you're wrong, and don't want to admit it, or you think that neglected or unwanted children should be forced to stay with their parents. Or you're just naive enough to think that you can make everyone act how you think they should act just by telling them to. Either way, I think we're done here.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 03:15 PM
1

So you do think that asking people why they're having children will stop people from having children? Hahahaha. What do you should happen to children who's parents can't or won't look after them?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 03:03 PM
1

It's irellevant as to why people make children, as we have no way of stopping them from doing so. And you can teach people to be responsible parents as much as you like, that's no guarentee it will happen. I mean I agree people should get that education, but that's not going to fix all problems. So again, what do you think should happen to children who's parents either can't or won't look after them?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 02:04 PM
1

You're really trying everything to avoid the question aren't you? Do you think children with negligent parents are better off with their parents or with foster parents? I'll even rephrase the question, so parents (And yes that includes the mother) aren't looking after their child, and what to give it up, what do you think should happen?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 01:00 PM
1

Parents who through either malice, ignorance, or lack of ability can't or won't take care of their child. Do you think those kids are better of with their parents, or with foster parents?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 12:04 PM
1

And if the choice is foster homes or negligent parent, which do you think is better for the child?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 11:04 AM
1

There's some disagreement, but I believe the majority of libertarian groups lean one way.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:44 AM
1

Well when it comes to abortion, I tend to agree with the libertarian stance.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 01:39 AM
1

Even if we did do this, there are going to be people who are going to find out after the fact that they just can't, or don't want to be parent, there are going to people who are just going to be unsuitable to be a parent. Do you think everyone involved there is just out of luck?
/r/MensRights21/12/18 01:29 AM
1

It's its just always what I think of when someone talks about teaching abstinence only. As for the actual effectiveness of abstinence. You can just look at the teen pregnancy rates in places that have abstinence only education. People are going to have sex, there's not many truer statements than that.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 11:12 PM
0

Actually there's one method that is 100% effective every single time... Abstinence. Oh really?
/r/MensRights20/12/18 10:32 PM
1

I dont think you quite understand how adoption works.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 10:30 PM
-1

Because not all ways of preventing having children are 100% effective.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 09:50 PM
-2

So kids should be forced to be raised by parents who don't want them if that's the case?
/r/MensRights20/12/18 06:26 PM
17

Well who else do you think should deal with adoption?
/r/MensRights20/12/18 02:34 PM
1

That's how the law has worked for much longer than feminism has been around.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 09:29 PM
2

Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways, that's why courts don't determine if a person is innocent or not, they just see if the evidence is there to prove their guilt.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 07:22 PM
-3

That's not how the law works.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 07:17 PM
5

You're ok with a police officer kicking a handcuffed person in the head?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/18 02:23 PM
46

She got the police officer convicted for attacking someone who was handcuffed and on the ground, so I guess she did. This was police brutality.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/18 10:26 AM
1

If you asked a homeless person to leave your home, and then they died, would you be legally responsible for their death? And how do my examples have nothing to do with the topic? Either the right to life comes before all other rights like you claim, or it doesn't. So do you think my right to life is more important than your right to your property?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/18 05:50 AM
1

The right to life doesn't trump all other rights, otherwise the government could force you to give blood or provide a kidney if someone's life depended on it. And they could also force you to accept homeless people in your home, because their right to life trumps your right to your property.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 11:52 PM
13

Or if you're going to donate sperm, do it properly and not through an internet ad.
/r/MensRights16/12/18 04:09 PM
1

The womb and a person's home are both their property, the same applies to any property, not just their home. And no, just because something happens or is needed, does not make it a right. Sex is equally necessary for human life, so does the right to sex exist? The right to exist off of someone else's body, or any of their property doesn't exist.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 03:43 PM
2

If you invite someone else into your home, you can end that invitation at any point, regardless of what the concequences may be. Your body, is also your property, and anyone else's access to it can equally be retracted at any point. Having sex does not sign away a person's right to their body for 9 months. quite simply the right to exist inside another person doesn't exist.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 03:08 PM
2

No one is pro-killing babies. The idea that the government cannot force a person to use their body to keep someone else alive, regardless of how they got into that situation, should be if anything, a pretty conservative viewpoint.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/18 10:30 AM
3

I'm pretty sure without the NDA, she still would have been remembered as the porn star who the President cheated on his wife with just after the birth of their child.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/18 11:26 PM
7

This suit had nothing to do with the NDA.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/18 10:38 AM
0

https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/met-police-officer-spied-female-15494180 But still, If a woman would have done the worst things that he was accused of, she would not have been arrested or even reported. Yes, she would.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 01:19 PM
0

Regardless of his intent when entering the bathroom, his actions, even what he says happens, sounds suspicious as hell. Just sitting there for half an hour, taking off his top, telling the woman unprovoked that he had taken off his top because he was flushed, even though she would only have known he had done so if she had previously seen him with the top he had taken off, which she said she had seen while in the shower. Now of course acting suspicious doesn't prove guilt, but if you can't see wh…
/r/MensRights06/12/18 01:06 PM
2

There's also that she knows he was wearing a different top before she saw him leaving the cubicle. Regardless of his actual intent on entering the bathroom, he behaved suspicious as hell when he was in there.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 12:45 PM
1

Yes, he was arrested because he was accused of a crime, that's generally how being arrested works. Him being acquitted doesn't change that he was arrested for allegedly committing the crime he was accused of, not just because he entered the female toilets. Plenty of men use the female toilets without being arrested.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 12:33 PM
12

Incredibly misleading title, he wasn't arrested just because he went into the toilet.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 07:17 AM
1

He did sue her, that's what this lawsuit was.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/12/18 06:24 AM
14

I've never known it to be frowned upon to use actress.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/12/18 02:38 PM
28

So... where's the Pussy pass?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/18 04:30 PM
2

Who lied under oath?
/r/MensRights08/11/18 10:12 AM
53

It was an anonymous letter sent without a return address, can much actually come from it?
/r/MensRights03/11/18 03:38 PM
2

You do know that people in the USSR were paid according to how productive they were and what job they did right?
/r/MensRights01/11/18 05:00 PM
-1

That has nothing to do with why communism doesn't work.
/r/MensRights01/11/18 11:44 AM
4

You're assuming she knows that too.
/r/MensRights25/10/18 07:16 PM
-7

Well who's going to make her pay?
/r/MensRights25/10/18 02:56 PM
-21

Pay for what? A tweet?
/r/MensRights25/10/18 02:36 PM
280

Let's be honest, she probably had no idea what the mural was about.
/r/MensRights25/10/18 02:10 PM
48

What she did was shitty, but she didn't kill him. We can't go around acting like men can't think for themselves, this isn't a dog she taunted and then let loose on her boyfriend.
/r/MensRights17/10/18 02:10 PM
6

Wtf, how do they justify this at all? Men are potentially more dangerous than woman to the average prison guard.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 01:52 PM
3

There's a big different between "it doesn't matter when it happens", and "it doesn't happen often". The chart should really explain exactly which one it means.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 07:33 AM
1

Same reason people don't want regular brothels in their neighbourhood. NIMBY is a thing.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 07:32 AM
0

They are used during screenings for some federal employees however.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 01:41 PM
-3

Except that the whole alpha/beta thing is complete bullshit.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/10/18 08:26 AM
71

Say you identify as a woman.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 10:50 AM
21

A lot of the time it's just shitty things done by a woman.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/18 09:48 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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