TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tyciol Archive

View 31 posts and 7,086 comments by tyciol 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)
1386

tyciol/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:38 PM
348

tyciol/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:14 AM
32

tyciol/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:12 PM
27

tyciol/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:58 AM
16

Generaltyciol/r/MensRights30/05/15 03:55 AM
16

tyciol/r/MensRights18/11/12 06:29 PM
16

Newstyciol/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:35 AM
16

tyciol/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:35 PM
14

tyciol/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:29 PM
12

tyciol/r/MensRights06/08/13 06:58 PM
11

tyciol/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:33 PM
10

tyciol/r/MensRights08/07/13 06:51 PM
9

tyciol/r/MensRights31/05/13 12:26 AM
8

tyciol/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:40 AM
6

tyciol/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:13 AM
5

tyciol/r/MensRights22/05/13 12:57 AM
4

tyciol/r/MensRights08/11/12 01:39 AM
4

tyciol/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:12 PM
2

tyciol/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:59 AM
2

tyciol/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:15 AM
1

tyciol/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:57 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:32 AM
0

Questionstyciol/r/MensRights17/05/15 02:15 PM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights11/12/12 06:08 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:28 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:33 PM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:26 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:24 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights08/02/13 05:57 AM
0

Discussiontyciol/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:16 AM
0

tyciol/r/MensRights25/11/13 09:35 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 7,086 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Even the.WWF has turned on men. Back in the 90s they had John Bobbit on Raw. Helped get the poor guy money and fame. Skip ahead 15 years to WWE. Sharon Osbourne mocks a guy who not only gets hispenis cut off, but put in a grinder so it could not be reattached like Bobbitt. WWE naturally responds by having John Cena guest on her show, letting her guest host Raw as GM for the night, and then gives her an award calling her the best host of the year. Naturally they also start dedicating an entire mo…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:16 AM
1

Disagree. MRM panders to a higher tier of women who want a fair game. Who want true respect rather than fear. Women with reality based.pride.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:11 AM
1

I think cuz they have strong attack tools. Critics risk destruction. Neutral non supporters get politely saught out at first then destroyed if they resist changing their a narrative.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:06 AM
1

Yup. I considered myselfna feminist in high school. Feels bad man
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:05 AM
1

Retaliation is easy to hide.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:04 AM
1

http://chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself When clear evidence of innocence like this exists I want to kill the media Bo claimed she was being carried in. Every reporter who wrote that should be enslaved as Ched Evans' servant for 13 years.
/r/TheRedPill11/06/15 03:01 AM
0

Except a lot of alphas shop around. 10 guy grabs dozen 5s. 6 guy grabs dozen 1s. Still leaves 1/10 guys out.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 09:58 PM
1

Feeling fear does not mean 100% paralysis from it. That said my fear makes me a very reserved apprehensive person who is often unhappy and unsuccessful.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 09:57 PM
1

True. Anger will frequently follow prolonged fear. Sometimes abandoned like getting mad at comet knocking down. Building.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:47 PM
1

I would say 1st world.men rather.than American. This.shit.exists in Canada. Prob also UK and Australia. Maybe even Japan.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:45 PM
1

Roosh seems like an MRA in posts like this even if he insults them and denies being one. I looks at the end result.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:44 PM
1

The idea.is.if I recognized a site we outrank I would better understand the relevance.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:31 PM
3

How.do you move.from no marriage to no kids? They get that without husband.and fund it through wageslavery. Jails.funded.mostly by taxing men who generate more tax income by working longer hours and higher paying dangerous jobs
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:30 PM
6

You guys are BSing. We experience anger or fear or both sometimes.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 08:27 PM
2

Or advance both info rather than hold B until whenever you guess A is believed Particularly since numbers help impact.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 07:41 PM
2

Simple.truths.are.the.glue that hold.lies.together. I bet.we.could find some. Like "Calgary Expo is held.in Alberta" or something.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 07:03 PM
1

Any idea what either 20k or 25k would mean? What.notable sites rank lower?
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:55 PM
2

Would be interesting to sum up the exact time in this and then compare it to Dredd and his female co-stars.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:54 PM
2

I have no problem with "The Coochie Snorcher That Could" Eve sucks.because she pitched it as.real story then rewrote it when critics picked at girl being 13 so she changed to 16. I would not call the drunken teen Lesbos oral in that rape. Doing so makes the same sensationalist mistake that feminists do. The story also does not necessarily celebrate it. It could also be perceived as depicting the mixed feelings minors have about consensual encounters with elders. Or possibly with alcohol hookups.…
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:52 PM
2

She reminds me of LARP boffer weapon construction materials https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlYQiX-ah5Re1h3-GXZEQgtz1wMS44-4dHqyYvMDe8e8576g5U
/r/MensRights17/05/15 03:27 PM
0

Imagine a guy hardening a woman's shirt in cement or stitching it randomly all over the place and threatening to seal up her cunt as punishment for her being one. Hilarious.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 03:15 PM
3

Genius idea.guys. We create a gender swap version of this to create a misogyny false flag. Ship t off as real.and circulate to cause a media shitstorm. Media never checks references. To be convincing someone will have to buy a women's shirt and do a convincing cutout of a vagina on it so you can have the fictional misogynist call his pregnant girlfriend a cunt. This is going to be the hardest part. It seems easier to cut out dick and balls and have the pattern be recognizable than with a vagina.…
/r/MensRights17/05/15 03:09 PM
1

Agree that new.foods mess with instinct. It is the responsibility of parents to compensate for this by controlling intake if they buy foods easy to overfeed on. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolism Reading up it appears triglyceride formation tends to happen if liver glycogen is depleted. If muscle glycogen is low, liver glycogen will convert to glucose to replenish blood glucose as muscles suck it up. This will make room in liver to convert the fructose. Seems to balance ou…
/r/MensRights16/05/15 06:42 PM
1

At very least guy should get 90% control of assets and weekly 3somes.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 04:05 AM
0

You still have not explained.how the bus ad is prejudicial.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 04:03 AM
0

I do not think reviewing the parenting ability of someone who spends time shaming innocent strangers instead of watching their kid is anywhere near their level. please.do.not equate simple oversighting with feminist terrorism.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 04:03 AM
1

Of course babies lack willpower. They are too ignorant to have reasonably informed agency. That is why the.parent should not overfeed them. Their agency substitutes until later. Are you.saying the fructose in apples.goes directly to fat? No chance of it rebuilding liver glycogen?
/r/MensRights16/05/15 04:00 AM
1

I thought it was. What else is it about which you think is a present foible in this situation? If members of both genders are making the same statements.in similar States of undress a difference.must be identified for the statement to become about the sex.of either person. The same would apply if 2 posters had people of.different races. You first need to prove the ad is doing something unique.in response to the criterion.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:38 AM
1

No it isn't. It is an eyebrow for an eye. Is is aesthetically displeasing but will.never approach the.threat this man has been subjected to. I would jury nullify anyone persecuted for slipping Nair into her shampoo. Would serve her right.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:35 AM
1

There are genetic variations regarding fat storage and hormonal ones. Some guys may have narrower hips and higher % of fat total on quads compared to others. Hambeasts.can't do shit like chins or sprints or deadlift above bodyweight or approach suspended front splits. They are in the lumbering inept tier. Thigh chafe is not only an problem for extremely fat men but also for the slightly a chunkier a than as arable types. My gut sticks out but I can see my abs if I flex. This is impossible for tr…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:33 AM
1

Getting back into a relationship with someone is not the sole way of working things out with someone. Nor does absence of forgiveness mean someone is incapable of giving it. It can takes courage tonfacs your doubts about the existence of Yahweh and jump off a cliff having hopes Jehovah will catch you. It is a brave thing to do. It is not insane fearlessness since the person retain doubt. Yet it is reckless and does not make a man better for doing it. Even accepting the road you go down that the …
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:27 AM
-2

If I create some hotty rejuvenation drugs would you then be able to enjoy a hatefuck? Like that whole depressed semi-twisted cathartic "society won't allow me the satisfaction of a successful lawsuit against you for damages... but since I know you fed my daughter your fapfic so you could shlick to the thought of me behind your notepad, now in your new bodacious bionic beach body you can satisfy mine cawk in compensation and let your true lustful motives be illustrated". (trying to explain the co…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 06:13 AM
12

I dunno man. Its one thing to turn on someone if you think they are guilty. The central problem is she believed this with no evidence. Just because being accused herself discredited your accuser.doesn't mean she is cured of the propensity to jump to negative conclusions about you.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 06:06 AM
3

Why does letting someone back into your life after they turn on you like this make someone a "better" man?
/r/MensRights12/05/15 06:04 AM
1

You are mixing up sexism with sexual imagery. Since either gender can top or bottom, ride or be ridden, there is nothing sexist about both male and female models being used. For all the talk of feminists standing up for marginalized groups, I see no reference to an issue less fantastic: racism due to both models being white. Is it against other races for not including them? Or against whites by portraying them as slutty for charging so little for sex for such a long period of time, taking all ma…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:58 AM
2

How do I explain to my son that when the Bella Twins were all over Daniel Bryan for being a Vegan that it was a reference to chicks with a fetish for virgin guys? Especially since I never picked upon it until someone pointed it out years later.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:48 AM
2

I suppose it never occurred to these heterosexist feminists that the man is offering men to ride him and the woman bus wants a girl on top of her.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:46 AM
1

But they are not treated the same way. The woman I is better covered by her sign. The man is more exposed.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:43 AM
3

The ads are indeed sexist. The male version exposed.his nipples while the female version received more coverage of cleavage up to clavicles to avoid offense. It tells men that our erogenous zones do not matter. That they are a scar on a breast unfit to suckle. Unable to nurture life, like the important female chest obscured from view like a deity we peons are unworthy to gaze upon lest we corrupt it or be destroyed by it. Male version was also muscular which would make men with less muss feel in…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:41 AM
3

And imagine how much it would get if woman striking for men shelter Or woman striking for women shelter
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:24 AM
3

As an X-Men fan I do not like it Plus like with radfem it serves to wrongly paint feminism with a fault free brush by ascribing BS to a subgroup.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:17 AM
1

CM Punk having a petite younger wife may not help the next gen deal with this.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:15 AM
4

Yeah what a third wheel he is trying to get between 4chumblr
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:14 AM
2

Expecting proof for weird stuff like panda makes sense. Proof.should not be needed when you accuse someone of mental illness or crime. These are clearly things most employers try to avoid.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:12 AM
1

Getting proof is hard because prospective clients or employers will just politely not do business with you to avoid being a target of anger or discrimination suit. In some cases we should just assumenby common sense that calling someone something harms work opportunity without proof. Accusing someone of having a paraphilic disorder whose diagnostic criteria requires either severe depression or criminal activity is clearly one of them since many employers would consider either a liability.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:11 AM
5

Yeah I mean just flip the genders here. If a guy took his daughters to My Little Pony on Ice and snapped a photo of a pegasister in a dashy shirt and tweeted "check out this lesbo lusting after my girls what.a creep" you know damn well he would be the one vilified and accused of sexualizing his kids and everyone would rally behind her right to be a fangirl.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:05 AM
2

Not everyone who commented negatively. If someone said they hated Darth Vader and his fans that'd be fine.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:01 AM
0

If by attack you mean verbally criticize rather than physically assault then sure. Doesn't make us assholes. We wantnto avenge an injured comrade. People like thisnshoukd be knocked down a peg. Not just to discredit then but also to paint an example of consequences to people who fuck up so people will put more forethought in before accusing people of misdeeds.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 05:00 AM
0

Not necessarily. This illustrates the power it has. Maybe it means we should use it to hit back and create a chilling effect against unfounded accusations.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:57 AM
3

Do you insinuate that rolling over and letting abusers go on to hurt others, possibly even their kids, with psych abuse, is more moral than imposing consequence to compel them to correct their antisocial behaviors?
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:56 AM
0

Zero is least possible which would mean not punishing any crimes at all.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:50 AM
3

Fuck this attitude. Parents should not get away with shit just because they've a brood. Outing alarmists benefits kids who suffer under their controlling rule I know how this type thinks. Kids would be better off in foster care.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:48 AM
3

Apologies are free. Inadequate. She must make amends. She should pay this man money for his suffering or go to jail. Her reputation should be drug through mud. People should understand there are consequences. Keep in mindnfolks that if Darth Vader guy was only taking pic for himself and not sending it to his fanboy nephew the woman probably wouldn't have even apologized. You know damn well the misandrists are already speculating that the guy was about to photo her kids or that he did so and dele…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:46 AM
3

Stop being dramatic. It would make her future more difficult which is good. Harder life wouldngivenher less time to harass men. It would improve the future of her children. She is a bad role model and will abuse them.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:42 AM
1

Dude a guy doesn't even need to be hambeast tier for this issue. Pretty sure guy legs are closer together due to narrower pelvises and differently shaped femurs. This is why the "thigh gap" aesthetic is more often seen in thin women than in thin men. Another issue is that it is not just leg fat that causes it but bulk in general including muscle. I do squats to build muss and burn calories and this beefs up medial hamstrings, adductors and vastus medialis muscles.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:34 AM
2

They are being used as a counter example because this is the ethnicity of the professor. The mistake one risks is more so focusin on noncaucasian men rather that focusing on entitled or disruptive women. But in this case the person you objected to did both.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:34 AM
1

No. He ate fewer calories.because he.did not eat them. Let's respect human agency and not just treat people as recipients of hunger's.actions. tip of fedora.to typhonblue.recent statements Of course.feeling less hungry on fewer calories is certainly nice and can make healthy choices easier to stick to. Nothing wrong with that.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:10 AM
2

The blood can only hold so many lipoproteins circulating fat for easy access to mitochondria. I don't care what insulin is at your adipose is gonna suck DAT shit once it gets saturated. At best insulin may just predispose us to store it early and be a bit less energetic. Course that is merely feels so if you push through and work out the same it shouldn't matter. Was pondering today if need for carbloading might be exaggerated, at least for fatties. Now sure, fatty acids are not anaerobic fuel f…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 04:06 AM
0

You have a point. Though to counter, due to calories per gram you can pack in more calories of fat in binge eating before feeling full.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 03:01 PM
3

You confuse me correctly identifying another person's argument with agreeing with it. While I have witnessed entitled.black individuals.I cannot say I know what.portion of the group it represents.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:59 PM
2

Yup but not always highlighted by OPs.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:57 PM
3

Pounds of what? Fat? Muscle? Body hair? This is not a weight issue it is composition issue. I am okay with fat until.it rolls over itself to create bacteria traps or causes chafing. I tolerate it better if there is muscle under to give it shape.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:51 PM
0

Pretty surenfat you eat also gets stored. Even if insulin didn't spike WTF you think happens to it?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:48 PM
0

In all fairness canned tuna only requires a can opener to use. Same with canned chicken. Sardines not.even that since they have a pull tab. Whey can also be just as cheap if you avoid the overpriced ones (I love you Protein Planet but you are guilty of thisnbut might buy.you anyway out of appreciation of your beach body stand). Cottage cheese is also affordable, gives calcium, a bit if carb and fat for energy, helps you feel full, slow metabolized casein to keep Amino's spiked during sleep to pr…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:43 PM
4

Info being available.isn't enough since you need to know what info to trust. When big gov is telling kids to pack in the bread I will not call them stupid.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:18 PM
2

You can get fat on a high fat low carb diet. You lost weight.because your diet was low in calories.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:16 PM
2

Nope. Alcohol or very nice men.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:14 PM
1

Agreed. More like "sometimes hitting a woman is justified, like in all self defense situations or if she gives informed sane uncoerced consent for you to do so"
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:13 PM
0

Grim don't move goalposts Piano said need not deserve. Hitting is never needed since there are other forms of defense like judo throws, joint locks, chokes, stabbing, shooting or running away. Its certainly one of the simpler options though.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:11 PM
0

I don't care if they are pregnant. Until there are equal procreative rights all babies are illegal weapons aimed at a man's head. Slaps to the face can cause brain damage if hard enough to cause rapid rotation. They can also cause falls or collisions. If she is wearing a ring it can also cut or blind us. Due to adrenaline there is no way to quickly assess the extent of injury. We also have no way of knowing if assault will end at one hit or whether it will be followed by more dangerous attacks o…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 02:07 PM
2

That experience is not guaranteed. I fucking love exercise but there is some shit to dislike like thigh chafe during long walks. Also unless you have equip weight fucks up some move like chins. I gotta stick to 1-4 reps which is not ideal for fat loss or hypertrophy and it makes micro progressions a bitch. Luckily I figured out chair assist and bodyweight rows but is still a hassle. Low rep max effort stuff gives me splitting head pain before I get any decent muscle fatigue or cardio. Instead of…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:57 PM
3

Usually one of the three but not necessarily more. Although once reaching bedridden extremes where others control food types and will only give high calorie nutrition poor foods the lack of options makes me withdraw blame.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:52 PM
1

Straw man argument. Everyone acknowledges that fat humans are of the same species. That is in fact probably a cause for greater criticism and analysis. If we thought they were a diff species like Jabba the Hutt am pretty sure we would be more tolerant since we understand them less.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:49 PM
-1

Disagree with title. All have self will. As for indicating comparative amount, fatties can exhibit more will in areas besides eating discipline so their exhibited will in one region makes no guarantees about their sum will as a being. Same with other unhealthy habits like smoking or cutting. Karen for example. Just cause I don't smoke doesn't mean I have more will than she does. Same consideration to fatties.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:47 PM
2

Your criticism seems directed at jdub06 not ududude. You're more apt to be engaged replying to those you are criticizing. You are also skipping the main point of Jehu bringing that up. He was pointing to it as a ramification and proof of black guys also being cocky and entitled and catered to. The point was to highlight that not only white males should be characterized that way. For you to misportray that as "the savages are after our wimminz" seems unnecessarily inflammatory. When one is so fix…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:38 PM
2

I see.. So something has to be overwhelmingly present, the majority, to be a huge problem? So much for college rapes mattering.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:29 PM
4

Not surprising since this is Massachusetts, just look how fairly Eron Gjoni gets treated there, being litter skinned than judge Jon who ironically wants to white Knight for Chelsea aka Zoe Quinn.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:27 PM
2

Am okay with this. The prob is the contrasting.abuse of term rape.in.gender swapped equivs.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:24 PM
1

You summarized his views as "to govern themselves" not to govern a population. Being able to participate in intersex governments competently does not mean a monogender government could work. We could only tell be comparing the success of male only groups to female only groups. Hillary is secretary of state. My education on that coming solely from Madame Secretary it seems more like a diplomat role than a governing one. My ignorance aside I do not consider being elected or appointed to a position…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:20 PM
1

What entirely female government are referring to? I worry in second case you may be literally interpreting an exaggeration done to make a point. Doubtful henthinks men are 100 logic 0 emotion and women are 0 logic 100 emotion. For all we know his comparison may represent a 51-49 vs 49-50 stance.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:58 AM
2

Insinuate may have been too weak a word choice.but "flat out" his statement was not. That was why I had to paraphrase the meaning of the title. If he had blatently claimed "this is the only fake rape case" or "all other rape cases are true" there would have been a bigger response to it. The subterfuge is that he began using less extreme language ("a sea") which was not all-or-nothing. It hinged on the undefined subjectivity of metaphor. That preps people to ignore his.elevation in"only" particul…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 09:35 PM
2

Ugh can't.believe I missed that. So he is insinuating it might be true. I would be okay if people talked this waynifnthey consistently did so then other way around. Likenif a man is convicted of rape call it a failed alleged rape defense instead of a rape or rape conviction. Pretty sure Jon doesn't do that though. Hypocrite.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 09:26 PM
1

I do not agree with that. It certainly CAN be hate based and I am open to considering this to possiblynbe the most prevailing underlying motive of such beliefs or expressions but that does not make it right to claim to be an empathic psychic for anyone who says that stuff. Foraging into that territory is ad hominem anyway. It detracts from discussing the actual claim. All that matters is proving claims we disagree with are false, not speculating on why people say false things.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 08:58 PM
1

A transcript of the JtO v Prof debate.would help.illustrate this if anyone.is up to it.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 06:23 PM
1

Wanting someone to be subservient does not mean you hate them. I do not hate pets or farm animals. Let's not make the feminist mistake of labelling any who hold views we do not agree with as woman haters.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 06:21 PM
1

That account was recently retired. His newer view are up at https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCNmwzc2acPxd0gFZzltbwYw/ I really hate YouTube's new channel URLs ugly as hell.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 06:19 PM
1

https://www.reddit.com/r/Manhood101/comments/35i90g/comment_censorship/ I made a post critical of the comment censorship policies that take place on his YouTube videos and forum. For those who do wish to discuss his ideas or criticisms whether to promote or object you are free to on that subreddit. I invite prof to do so as well. If he.has complaints about censorship here then he can make a new thread and link to the comment he wants to reply to and speak his mind. If he says more than insults a…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 06:11 PM
1

I thought inflammable might mean you were flame-resistant.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:40 AM
1

Let's say they don't accept it and continue pursuing the matter elsewhere... I think in this case Judy would sue them for breach of contract, right?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:27 AM
4

To be fair, you can be a non-feminist and still hate men, though if you don't also hate women (as usually inferred by man-hater) there could be something said about avoiding hating women as being feminist I guess. What led you to think Judy hates men?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:25 AM
6

yeah, I don't think I would have noticed it unless it was pointed out That said, 'cocky smile' is something I can't tell apart from 'nervous smile' in this case so I don't read into it as much as I do words.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:23 AM
3

Could you elaborate on why or how she ran out of a room where Robin Hood was being shown? That's odd.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:23 AM
0

Eh, doesn't 'training' have to be active instruction? They do receive that, but I'd say not until years after. The capacity to manipulate is instinctive and all babies do it by crying for food. The difference is that boys tend to be weaned off the 'cry for what you want' stage earlier.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:22 AM
1

yes, legal fees should only be the beginning of justice
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:08 AM
1

This topic of discussion is relevant to Seth Rollins. His twitter account tweeted a picture of an NXT diva and as revenge, his ex tweeted a picture of him naked. Far as I know he was not punished for sending nudes of the NXT girl, though maybe someone hacked his account or stole his phone? I hope they don't fire her over that. They should fire Seth if he doesn't divorce the girl who tweeted his dick though.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:07 AM
1

Confusing, care to explain which part you mean?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:06 AM
1

why the fuck didn't he edge-grab with the hookshot
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:06 AM
1

Get them disbarred? Either way, I think 'ruin' means utter destruction, which would be death. We need a way to convey how people's lives are super-messed-up by what people do with something other than 'ruin' which is too absolute and sad.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:05 AM
1

But did this happen right away, or after a pause?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:03 AM
-2

That depends on whether one means Jews as in religious practitioners of judaism or whether it means the ethnic group associated with that religion, individuals who may be atheists or Raelians or whatever.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:34 AM
-1

I do not object to the comparison however do think it is fine to elaborate upon the comparison to point out the differences as iongantas has done. However, it is also worth pointing out that hate speech about 'Jews' can sometimes refer to what is perceived to be some kind of racial ethnicity thing (thus stereotypes like big noses and curly hair) and not exclusively about religious practice. That's why it's confusing, I wish people would come up with a different word for the ethnic meaning and th…
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:33 AM
2

Is that like when one Jewish guy becomes a doctor and another Jewish guy looks at first guy and says "makes me proud to be Jewish" or something? I know we can be ballsy and feel joy over the success of our people, but not sure that delight should extend to pride, isn't that what we feel over our own accomplishments? Of course, if you were part of the boycott, then it does extend to you :) I never visited those sites much to begin with so I don't know if not going there counts as any action... an…
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:29 AM
2

(responding to LeMayMayPoster from 8 hours ago) Considering rapists are a thing, I'd have to imagine that rape apologists are a thing as well to some extent. Apologism is a strange word, on instinct I would think 'rape apologist' would be a rapist who makes some partial amends by issuing an apology about raping someone. Yet people use it to mean 'rape justifier' or 'rape denier' or something like that.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:10 AM
0

I agree that if you want to have a group meeting for rape survivors, that you should be able to kick rape apologists out. I don't. These group meetings are for ALLEGED rape survivors, or do you require a criminal conviction against the person accuse to get in one? Why should people who are possibly just pretending for attention get special treatment? If it's privately funded that's one thing (exclude whoever you want) but if the government sponsors it in any way, it should be open to anyone. The…
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:08 AM
3

Nobody is actually throwing rocks at boys. http://www.live5news.com/story/25528400/ccso-students-caught-throwing-rocks-food-from-school-bus Although only 3 of the 8 students arrested are female, they are the only ones explicitly mentioned as being witnessed bringing ammunition and engaging in violence. Only 1 of the 5 boys has explicitly been noted as being involved, and only in hiding the girl's actions by sabotaging a camera. The report states 17-year-old Kayla Gilliard was spotted getting on …
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:48 AM
3

Which feminists were vouching for the girl's honesty?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:33 AM
1

Although I can accept the possibility that more slaps have hit females than rocks have hit boys, that might be due to girls having poor aim. Also 'slap her' may not necessarily mean violence, there are consented-to slaps in BDSM relationships. Eroticized rock-beating are rarer, I imagine.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:25 AM
6

Probably linked to some explanation on how it will help us in the long run by changing attitudes so that people will care about men by deconstructing macho culture... Yes not actually wanting to be part of that step themselves by protesting men being assaulted or persecuting women that do it.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:23 AM
1

I'm not even mad, however technically wrong the prefix might be, it's understandable enough. Where we apply 'in' vs 'un' has a feel of arbitrariness to it. I couldn't say I know the rules, just from experience have a feel for where they go. Then we have 'im' like impossible or improbable, it's weirdness.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:21 AM
1

We do not know whether or not Samus had emotional breakdowns the first 4 times since we only saw the outside of her helmet. Also: if you keep thinking a major threat is dead and they keep coming back, that might be more prone to eventually breaking you down than your first encounter with them. I mean, what is scarier in Ninja Gaiden... first Jaquio returned Jaquio or in Cave Story... base doctor MUSCLE doctor UNDEAD CORE doctor face it, the more you think you kill a villain, the more they keep c…
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:44 AM
2

How exactly would we know how Samus reacts to Ridley? In the original games or the Prime Trilogy I do not recall us getting a visual window on the facial expression of Samus during a Ridley encounter. I know whenever Ridley shows up I am scared as fuck and although a stoic Samus is possible, there is no shame in being frightened by Ridley, and she very well could have been. What makes her brave is she faces her fears and fights him. Samus being immune to fear would rob her of her bravery, fuck t…
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:30 AM
9

Perhaps they have a point: has Ganon tried to rape Link yet? ignores target age groups of games
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:26 AM
1

Please explain what that study means be under-representation of minorities. Does the percentage of black stars on TV not reflect the percentage of black people IRL or something? Having just watched several seasons of Person of Interest with Carter and the head of HR and army husband and drug-busting guy... not getting impression black people are. Less popular minorities on the other hand, sure, but then, why single out white people?
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:25 AM
2

Many good points made here, not the entire story or anything but a major factor. White males are the generic template that you can do more with. The more of a minority you make a character the more backlash you get for any plot or action involving them being prone to rage-fuel interpretations, regardless of evidence or intent.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:23 AM
1

Why is the Guardian being called pedophilic here? Are we implying that 14 year old boys are prepubescent or something? This is unlawful sex but it isn't pedophilia. Even if feminists would be prone to calling it that were this a 14 year old girl and an adult male, we should not make the error on purpose to make a point.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 03:19 AM
2

It should be, but I am not sure there is anything to stop a jury convicting without that evidence. So long as they do not feel doubt, men be fucked
/r/MensRights03/12/14 07:00 PM
3

I think the problem is that one gets a sense of guilty-until-proven-innocent when it comes to men being accused of circulating photos of their ex-GFs. Unless they can get a tape of someone else uploading, it is like they will be assumed to be the culprit. When, with reasonable doubt, they should not be assumed the culprit, only judged if such a tape of them exists.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:59 PM
1

Being married with kids is certainly part of it, but even a single politician without kids would still get trouble for tweeting penis pics.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:57 PM
1

I think whether to abhor or be disgusted by such a practice depends on the context. For example, if you do it for a moral purpose to unmask a villain. Like say for example, there was a politician campaigning to make homosexuality illegal... and a same-sex prostitute records this politician having homosexual sex and circulates it. I could see that as a public service.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:52 PM
0

I do not agree, one could hypothetically post pics of a person to an employer to get them a promotion.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:50 PM
2

Defamation and slander cases have a truth defense though. If a guy said -my girlfriend let me take this picture of her, but she did not want me to upload it to the net, but I am doing it anyway because I hate her- then if he was not lying, it should be protected under similar statutes. If on the other hand, he posted them as a means of misrepresenting her (like pretending to be her while uploading, lying about the context of the photos, etc) then I could see that falling under slander. Nudity is…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:48 PM
1

In the case where celebrity online media folders got hacked, I guess we could call that a data-rape.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:43 PM
4

They are not the same argument. Rape traditionally meant abduction, it implies taking by force, which can be done by means other than penetration. The rejected specifications of penetration were later-added and etymologically dishonest. Assault clearly refers to physical contact though, which simply does not happen with picture-taking. It is a mean thing, like stalking or harassment, but not all bad things are classified as assault.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:42 PM
4

Assault is a very specific form of violation. Violating the trust or privacy of someone does not mean that you assaulted them.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:41 PM
1

Sounds crocky to me. Voyeurism is not assault, and this is essentially what sex tape circulation does, makes voyeurs of anyone who sees the tape or pics. The lives are not ruined, drama-fag. Ruined things are irreparable, destroyed, save words like that for the dead. Upset, sure. But humiliation is not ruin. Lost jobs are not the fault of pic-circulators. If the firing was wrong, then take up a wrongful termination suit.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:40 PM
4

So long as rape is illegal, recording sex should be legal. In an atmosphere where men are convicted of rape without actual proof, based merely on heresay, sex recordings are a major defense for the purpose of convincing a jury of either obvious consent or at least ambiguity. There is a distinction between making a private recording for your own review (functionally no different from having a good memory) or legal defense (which would not be exposed unless falsely accused) and sending out a sex r…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:36 PM
-1

She's considering moving in with a guy she knows is divorced and rich. It's something she could've come up with. If you as an attorney haven't encountered the concept of coming up with a written agreement detailing your intent to co-habitate... perhaps you specialize in some other area of law?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:35 AM
1

Yeah I guess I find it odd... I assumed that if he was doing the contract (presumably under legal advice he got from his divorce lawyer?) that there was some form of need for it, some benefit that would come from it that would not be present prior.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:34 AM
0

an openly anti-straight male website Could you clarify what this means? Does this guy oppose heterosexuality in men?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:19 AM
3

Claude, since you went out of your way to specify a 'male' feminist, does that mean that while male feminists are inherently scum to you, female feminists are not? If there is no distinction, why not just say 'this guy is a feminist, and is therefore complete scum'? Also, why 'complete'? Surely feminists can rise to be only partially scum.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:18 AM
2

One feminist realizing and explaining the harmfulness of the phrase does not negate the fact that other feminists have used it to shame men.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:16 AM
4

"man up" clearly doesn't mean "act like an adult" because it has gender attachments.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:15 AM
3

I hate both 'grow up' AND 'man up'. Simplified bullshit that avoids addressing actual virtues. A way of saying "do what I think you ought to".
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:14 AM
1

bought into the anti-MRA message that says things like "they're all pathetic white men who blame every problem in life on women, and if their female boss complains about their shoddy work they shout Misandry! on the internet" bought into the message that feminism = equality, and no feminist has ever pushed for more than that. doesn't matter what definitions you use, as long as you're pro equality. How can he be pro-equality if he inherently condemns MRAs as whiners by generalizing them negativel…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:13 AM
2

guy specifically is anti-MRA Could you clarify how he opposes it, like the most offensive post/video of his you can find pertaining to MRA?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:12 AM
3

I don't have a large penis.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:11 AM
1

According to this analogy, I can own several pairs of socks and rotate them as they get dirty and I tire of them, and replace them if they get holes and begin to chafe me?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:11 AM
1

When I went to http://math.about.com/library/blcirclecalculator.htm and input a circumference of 6, apparently you get that from a diameter of <2 meaning a radius of <1 It's not impossible to imagine although I've always had trouble measuring those aspects.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:10 AM
-1

if a male were to say no to a woman because, for example, she had small breasts. You and i both know he would be labeled as sexist, misogynistic and probably a scumbag True, though neither would be apt. While homosexuality and heterosexuality are inherently sexist (since one is choosing partners based on sex) the preference for secondary characteristics is quite after the point. Although not hateful, preferring someone for carrying fleshy bags that burden them and sometimes cause backpain IS kin…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:08 AM
0

Tardis/balloon vag (bigger on the inside) I had to upvote this. Would you?
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:01 AM
1

Someone should just invent some kind of 'Iron Man' condom that adds 2 inches to length and an inch to girth with built-in repulsor rays.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 05:00 AM
0

learn how vaginas work. If they can return to normal after childbirth, a few dicks are't going to do much. Vaginas do not immediately return to normal after childbirth. Some women also experience tearing and stuff during it. Girthy penises can indeed stretch things out.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:58 AM
0

There are no small nor large penises. Incorrect, they can be classified by size by comparing them to others. I have a penis. It is neither large nor small. It is me. Your penis is not you. You are your brain. Way to objectify yourself bro. women seem to feel they have this right to lay around outside of relationships and marriage wearing their vaginas out without being tasked for their activity that enlarges their vaginal openings (stretching them out). Ignoring that some vaginas are inherently …
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:57 AM
1

Let's look on the bright side... at least she didn't say yes to get at his wealth only to cuckold him. Shallowness sucks, but guys are guilty of it too. There are guys out there dumping women for having boobs too small/large to balance out size queens. The answer to the question is obviously yes. But the amount it matters varies, and what size people prefer also varies. I guess there've probably been some documentaries whining about the pressure to get breast implants so I shouldn't bitch about …
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:53 AM
0

I'd hit it
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:52 AM
3

Age of consent is 18 when the party is in a position of trust though, which she was, as his teacher.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:51 AM
3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#England_and_Wales says that the age of consent in England is normally 16, and has apparently been so from 1885. It becomes 18 if the older party is in a position of trust though. That is really the only factor here. That she was 'dogging' (which she may have been using condoms for) and that she had 'unprotected' sex (allegedly) with the lad, is quite irrelevant to whether or not she should be convicted. Although I can see that form of reckl…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:50 AM
1

Exploitive / exploitative are terms which I understand have negative usages although I am not clear what they mean in that context. So far as I can tell the root verb is 'to use for one's own advantage' although that too lacks context. Advantage relative to what? Advantage over what one is using? Advantage in general? One could 'exploit' the range of a sword to defeat an opponent without harming the sword (or its range), for example. In symbiotic relationships, 2 things would each be exploiting …
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:36 AM
1

The requirement to talk goes both ways. Nikki could have discussed things like this with John before moving in, like how long she would have to move out if he no longer wanted her there, and also lobbied for a contract.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:31 AM
1

Why did he last season make this big romantic overture to have her move in to take their relationship to the next step if he was going to treat her like a "guest" that he can remove at any minute in his home? Well, really with a 'guest' you could remove them immediately, you wouldn't need the 40 hour window. I think 40 hours is too short for someone who has moved in furniture (although I've missed most of S2 so I can't remember how much she actually brought in) but her status with this contract …
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:30 AM
1

I'm not entirely sure, only witnessed paraphrasing of the document. I figured if he was drafting up a contract that there was some kind of need for it, I assumed something related to commonlaw. Although I had thought that commonlaw only occurred after years and I think those two have only been living together a few months.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:23 AM
1

You still don't need it, but it's helpful with those too.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:22 AM
1

There was no indication in this that the younger sister was 'being prostituted' as you describe. Not contacting the police is not an "act". As to whether or not inaction is morally bad, that's up to debate. Some view inaction as morally neutral, and only harmful actions as bad. If in this case the guy did nothing, his acts are at least neutral, and at best they are actually slightly altruistic, because he is taking up time the older sister might otherwise be using to hook up with someone who WOU…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 04:22 AM
2

Well then I think we're in agreement.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:56 PM
1

Can you really legally renege on a deal such as a private car sale if you can prove inebriation at the time? Would it work the other way around? I unfortunately don't know the answer to either question and I'm not sure that there is one consistent answer in all places.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:56 PM
2

Yeah I think we completely agree here. A small link to a page with a list of links, perhaps.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:55 PM
2

Well, I'm sure it will take effect to some degree, people might be having trouble converting downloaded copies of the video to a format that porn upload sites accept though.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:54 PM
1

So just to clarify, if I videotape myself getting a tattoo drunk, I can sue the artist for the removal fees if they did not notice or test with a breathalizer? I can understand having other bases besides Mens Rea. Someone who causes a car accident for example would lack a guilty mind as they intended no harm, yet they can still be held accountable for damages and incur criminal penalties for recklessness. It'd be ideal to distinguish between rape/assault and accidents the same way we do between …
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:54 PM
1

zero clue to WHAT sexual strategies they are talking about here What I'm talking about is not the strategies but rather, the result of the strategies, which is what the post was about. It says "males are drawn to sexual novelty and even rape". That is a statement about results that exists independent of whatever strategies they're alleging. Knowing the strategy specifics is not required to object to their conclusion that we're drawn to rape.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:51 PM
1

You can use multiple condoms for the same girl, and he may have only intended to use his lube for the older sister. I was not giving legal advice, I'm talking about whether or not the man should be convicted. Telling someone to go to law school if they can't distinguish entrapment is kinda rude bro. If you know, should've been easy enough to explain it politely.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:48 PM
1

We could cover 8-12 if we called it "pre-teen genital mutilation" as a thing to oppose, perhaps? PTGM?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:47 PM
1

You don't definitely need anesthetic, it's just incredibly painful without it. The option exists. Kellogg was for anesthetic-free circumcision so that the pain would traumatize the child and mate them hate sex, and many parents may opt for that approach.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:46 PM
1

he did eventually agree to bring condoms to protect the 14-year-old - thus implying (however faintly) that he would have sex with her Agreeing to bring condoms is not consenting to sex. By saying 'I will bring those' he may have already intended to do so for sex with the older sister. We can't eliminate the possibility that he'd just fuck the older sister "Amber" and bail on "Erin" when the time came.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:44 PM
1

Dang, good point, forgot to consider inflation.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:40 PM
1

I suppose creep could have various meanings. A lot of the time I see it used when people are rude and overtly sexual in their mannerisms. That it may also be used to describe people who are polite but whom we suspect have ulterior motives says to me that the term may be less useful and perhaps less ambiguous terms could be better in conveying meaning. Should have politely said, "ma'am, your sister is a child and I'm calling the police." Were these real sisters, do you think the comments they may…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:40 PM
1

That was not the matter being discussed, the term is based on the physical level of maturity, not mental. Otherwise we'd call people who wanted to fuck 30 year old retards pedophiles.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:35 PM
1

isn't "arrest" meant to convey that the person has been taken into police custody regardless of how they came into police custody? I guess, in an unusually broad sense, but there's a difference between saying someone is 'under arrest' versus 'arrested'. Using it as a verb in that way makes it an action done by another party (the police) and makes it sound like they went out and apprehended her, as opposed to simply "arresting" the person once they've voluntarily put themselves in your hands. It'…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:34 PM
1

If she wants to be a resident, she could draft up an agreement to pay him rent for a longer period of notification, no?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:31 PM
1

I don't remember seeing her do it. She seemed more amenable after the whole 'I support my sick/elderly family' story but that could be for show. Sadly I'm going to miss the finale, much like Walking Dead :(
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:30 PM
1

he waited until she moved cross country and had all of her stuff delivered before springing it on her. I still don't see the issue, it's not as if he made he a co-owner on the deed of the house or anything, or that they actually got married. All he's 'springing' on her is that he wants protection against her automatically acquiring his assets. She loses nothing from this except the ability to exploit him. Even had she not signed this, at this point if he asked her to move out, she would have to,…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:30 PM
1

Ah, but he married Elizabeth Huberdeau in 2009 and got screwed over, in spite of having been the DoT since ~2003, so I think it took getting screwed over to learn to lay down the law in advance.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 09:42 AM
1

I was talking about what is typically referred to as female circumcision, what involves removal or mutilation of the clitoris. Why are you supporting that inaccurate terminology? Circumcise means 'cut around'. It means cutting around the glans of the clitoris or penis to remove the prepuce, called clitoral hood in women and foreskin in men. People who call amputation of the clitoral glans circumcision are idiots and we should be opposing their misuse of terminology. in regards to having it done …
/r/MensRights10/11/13 11:19 AM
1

My best friend (uncircumcised) was a swimmer on our high school team and was in public pools for up to 8 hours a day with no way to clean during this. Because of this, he had a lot of issues with bacteria in his foreskin that led to very painful infections on more than one occasion. Eventually he made the decision himself to get circumcised Surely we could invent some kind of penis insulation device for swimmers to prevent such infections rather than cutting it off. How exactly did this guy have…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 11:17 AM
1

Kuro you seem to have read "don't need anesthetic" as "people never use anesthetic", you're calling a straw man a sadist.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:46 AM
1

We should probably clarify here that it's ear-piercing being talked about. The term could apply to other things which are a lot less common. The complications of a pierced ear are clearly less than that of a pierced penis or clitoris (and I don't see anyone advocating for doing that to minors) and even those are less mutilating than circumcision.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:45 AM
2

We should make a clear distinction where possible. Circumcision is a form of GM for both genders, but it is not the only form. Amputation, stabbing, chemical burning, etc. are also GM but not circumcision. Only cutting around the prepuce qualifies since it means 'cut around'
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:43 AM
1

It would be weirder if we gave special treatment to it. What's actually weird is how charities get tax-empty. We should stop that, and tax all the churches. It would help society.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:41 AM
2

Your sales tax objection and re-investment tax objection apply to income earned from jobs and businesses too, so I don't see any validity in this.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:40 AM
9

In this case it's good that he got it all at once though, because if it had been in installments, the later payments could've been withheld and sent to this greedy woman. By getting it faster, he was able to protect his property.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:39 AM
47

This guy is a role model for us all.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:38 AM
2

I don't like the biased "arrested for raping" headline when the details themselves clarify "surrendered to the police yesterday after allegedly raping a teen" Someone who turns themselves in should be described as such. 'Arrested' makes it sound like fleeing or resisting arrest. If this is only in the allegations phase then we should not be wording it as if Amanda Iles is guilty. Let's show her more courtesy than the sexist media shows to men. The report by Eric Gendron at http://ossining.dailyv…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:12 AM
1

I prefer we apply some new term. Searching "genital mutilation" will generally just return FGM results. Something specific like "non-consensual". Some I have come across: BGM: Baby Genital Mutilation IGM: Infant Genital Mutilation I think mutilating male genitals is illegal once you're an adult, and focusing on the age factor is also inclusive of opposition to the FGM of babies without being wrongly opposed to the FGM of adults who consent to it (which FGM basically does by nature of its etymolo…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:04 AM
2

police in this case would be in serious trouble for trying to coerce someone into statutory rape with threats of withholding sexual contact with the 19 year old I'm not sure I like the idea of calling 'withholding sex' coercion. I think we should stick to the key point of him not explicitly promising sex. Also it's entirely possible a guy could answer this ad, and were it real, fuck the 19 year old and then bail without doing anything with the younger sister as promised (or in this case, merely …
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:58 AM
4

No, he wasn't. He mailed a non-specific ad and was pretty polite-sounding in the excerpts I read.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:56 AM
9

seems like people should realize that agreeing to have sex with an underage girl they met on the internet is a terrible idea This didn't happen here. The guy was trying to hook up with a girl who he thought was 19 and "she" kept trying to bring up her sister. find it hard to sympathize with the men caught by these stings .. I want bad things to happen to stupid people. There were some warning signs here, but the guy figured he would risk it because he knew he was not technically doing anything i…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:55 AM
7

How exactly is identifying Edwin Gennette's reluctance framing MRAs as pedophiles? Keep in mind that Huitzil was paraphrasing, not quoting verbatim.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:53 AM
6

said yes to having sex with a 14 year old No, he didn't. Read the damn transcripts. hope the pedophile rots 14 year olds are pubescent, not pre-pubesescent. Even if he did have a preference for them (which is not clear in this case, since there was a 19 year old sister too) it would not be pedophilia.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:51 AM
11

Watching this video made me think this case (Operation Blue Shepherd) IS entrapment. How is it not? Seems to fit all the requirements.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:49 AM
1

That seems a bit extreme, let's look at what he actually did: Anderson was accused of hiding two pieces of evidence that fit with the defense theory that Christine Morton was killed by a stranger who entered the home from an unlocked back door: • A typewritten transcript of a police interview with Christine Morton’s mother, Rita Kirkpatrick, who revealed that the Mortons’ 3-year-old son had witnessed the murder, described the attacker as a monster and said that Michael Morton was not home at the…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:43 AM
3

I can't believe I thought Obama was such a cool guy early on, the more I hear about the shit he spews, the disappointment grows.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:39 AM
2

I would link you but all the World Women Feminist association which rules over all other feminist groups' meetings are top-secret so you'll just have to trust me bro.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:28 PM
1

I do COTWA as a public service. I do not enjoy doing it, and would have stopped long ago if it weren't for people telling it was important Surely there's some kind of satisfaction/enjoyment in saving lives. It's like "man, building a roof is exhausting and I got sunburned, but I smile grimly at the idea of people sleeping warm under shelter" type thing. I do not have the time to do link to every quotation individually. KK that's all I needed :) I have the time for it but not the wherewithall to …
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:27 PM
2

The problem is you're sexualizing the term perverted, which is not inherently sexual in nature. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily sexualizing it myself, so much as recognizing that the term has been sexualized by others. I'm pretty much with you on objecting to the unnecessary sexual implications attached to previously neutral terms. I guess when it comes to fighting against that sexualization, I'd prefer to do it in other formats, and choose non-sexualized terms to use to make meaning clear in mor…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:22 PM
3

The way you guys carry on about it, one would think that women can legally murder people One might think that if one lacks reading comprehension. The concern is that people can get away with murder, or receive a slap on the wrist for crime in general. Whether this happens due to actual law or misapplication of law is irrelevant to the end result and the concern it invokes. I wouldn't be surprised if most of you regulars cringed and ran screaming from every woman you saw. That's ridiculous, I cri…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:20 PM
2

Yes it is, if someone is claiming to not be sexist, why should we only be objecting to one form of genital mutilation on the basis of sex?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:18 PM
1

50 Shades of Grey is popular, but so is Wheel of Time, which glorifies a boy being raped by an older woman as something enjoyable.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:17 PM
0

Culture is more internationally applicable than you might assume. Anime is influencing a lot of western mediums, and vice versa, western media is influencing Japan. This is how we get "The Animatrix" and "Batman: Gotham Knight" and why there is a "Power Puff Girls Z". Differences in historical basis and culture exist, true, but they exist (to a lesser degree) between Canada and US, and between individual US states, as well. But there's still overlap and increasing amounts of influence.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:16 PM
1

Logistically, shouldn't people start with the problems at home? Logistically, ending male circumcision in Africa is different than ending it here too, but they're ignoring both of those.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:14 PM
1

Basically
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:13 PM
1

wha... you mean you replied before I edited my post? I guess I forgot I edited it, lol
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:12 PM
1

The title of this thread is "rape of boy" not "alleged rape of boy". I should elaborate: I mean "rape" not modified in a way as to negate it or call it into question. Also it just seems messy to have 'rape' by the root noun here. I see no value in saying 'alleged rape' on its own, either. If we're going to discuss allegations we should specifically say who is presenting the allegation. I do wish we could invent a new word for 'alleged rape' though. Something more concise and less prone to adject…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:12 PM
1

No, consenting requires some means of communicating. Obviously if you were awake but completely paralyzed and unable to move or talk or express yourself by any means whatsoever then you would not be capable of expressing consent towards another.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:08 PM
1

Yeah I know that's what I said. :)
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:07 PM
0

Rudeness is unrelated to cruelty and sexism They're at least somewhat related. Surely cruelties are at least rude (and a worse thing in addition to it). Surely a sexist comment ('go make me a sammich woman') can be perceived as rude by some. Much of sexism is all about removing rights from one group or another. That would be institutionalized sexism. I think you're wrongly narrowing the definition if you think it has to involve government policy to qualify as sexism. did you forget about the suf…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:07 PM
0

(part 2 of 2) Who makes the determination of merit? Society, it's representatives, in concert with professionals put in positions of authority, would do so by whatever means we establish other laws. I suspect if you, or I, or tEW where given the power, they would abuse it This is hardly something to be put in the hands of one person. Furthermore, your attacks on a poster's character are completely off-topic and inappropriate. I should think you more likely to abuse such trust than TEW on the bas…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 02:52 PM
0

(part 1 of 2) Experience level. Level of informedness, We can quantify, in a general sense, how ignorant, gullible, and unwise someone is. That sort off level I prefer informedness. When people level up there's no telling if they're pumping points into Whirlwind or into Howl. Experiecne isn't necessarily knowledge or skill. Trying to equate it to D and D simply means you have no valid argument That would be a valid observation if I were literally equating things to D&D and not just making a joke…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 02:51 PM
0

A skill we've tested for millennial and found children lacking in To varying degrees, it doesn't justify a lack of a fair go. People should not be treated equally if they are not. For good or for bad. the fact that some boys want it and some girls want it is really irrelevant to the argument If they're irrelevant, you should not introduce them into the argument. If you do so, you'll be called out on whether or not they're being described in a clear manner.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:27 PM
2

Somewhere out in the world there are isolated examples of sociopathic "I bought you a salad at this restaurant, spread your legs" men, and these rare examples somehow are extended to be considered representatives of our entire gender by burned or misandric feminists.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:26 PM
2

I think we're in agreement here. She's painting the expectations as 1-sided and I'm giving complimentary examples.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:24 PM
1

Yes, but there are limits to how much sugar the liver can store (as glycogen I think?) and the liver releases sugar when blood sugar drops, and if glycogen stores within muscles are depleted from physical exertion they can absorb blood sugar to replenish those stores.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:24 PM
2

True I'm not saying men have exclusive 1-sided costs either, just counteracting the woman's implication that only women have costs they spend to make themselves more appealing to mates.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:23 PM
1

Even if you could fit it no one would read it. Wrong, some might. Certainly anyone arguing the content of the poster would potentially notice and consult it. Those of us who think critically about or are skeptical of poster claims would be motivated to check the source-link. Or... you were talking about fitting in all the sources rather than a URL weren't you? =/
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:22 PM
2

You didn't, but it's kinda related to the "how could anyone possibly think this is funny" type stuff. Presumably those who find things funny that others don't think could possibly find humorous are horrible non-person alien invaders.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:21 PM
6

I have additional difficulties with the analogy as I'm not even sure what ghost riding is, outside of Marvel.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:20 PM
7

If someone gets a tattoo while drunk do we jail the tattoo artist? Reneging on a business deal is simply the withdrawing of ineligible consent. It's a bit different from retroactively punishing someone for making the deal unaware of your inebriation. Like if I sell my car to a guy while drunk, the police simply make them return the car, not charge them for GTA.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:19 PM
1

Discussion of sexual strategies doesn't justify insinuation that men are more drawn to raping than women are.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:18 PM
1

I'm talking about Japanese media here =/ Like Legend of the Overfiend.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:17 PM
2

I'm not sure I agree that violence is depravity. If I look up depraved on wiktionary I get: Describing a person or action that is perverted or extremely wrong in a moral sense. Also corrupt in a moral sense, or disposition. I get how we view violence as wrong in a moral sense, it's right under that meaning, but when we say 'action that is perverted' it reminds me of things like sodomy being condemned as depraved. Depravity and perversion are very sexually linked things and kinda associated with …
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:16 PM
1

I'm confused though. Isn't "this is not your fault" defaming the guy as much as "this is your fault" defames the girl?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:12 PM
3

Yes, just last tuesday. It was a 5 page report.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:12 PM
2

A lot of sites hosting the vid have taken it down due to pressure. IMO all police evidence like sex vids should be public so we can make sure they're not fucking up and calling non-rapes rapes.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:11 PM
0

Just to clarify, could we source where in the news it discusses the specifics of actions being contemplated? Ideally direct quotes from uni staff and not reporter paraphrasing.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:11 PM
1

So long as both the guy and girl are equally penalized for public intoxication/sex I take no issue with it I guess. I'd say wave the punishment for the guy until you manage to successfully punish the guys who assaulted him afterward. I think he's suffered enough. A university's priorities are fucked up if they're more concerned about punishing students for public fornication than for punishing them for assaulting each other.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:09 PM
1

I used to. I guess I still trust some. I think some of us just turn a blind eye to some of the problems creeping into liberal movements because we agree with what they do in other areas, or think of them as a lesser evil to stave off the problems that've creeped into aspects of conservatism.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 01:08 PM
1

If COTWA is siding with the ability to support an alleged rape victim, would they also side with the freedom to condemn them? For example, if it is okay to post 'this is not your fault' then is it okay for someone to post 'this is your fault' ? There is the issue about the medium of communication too. It being okay to support/condemn either party doesn't necessarily mean it's okay to do so with sticky notes that mess up a window.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:52 PM
1

It was of a completely different person, the news agencies fucked up and aren't even admitting to the mistake. Plus the different woman on the sidewalk was just lying down while texting, she wasn't unconscious.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:50 PM
1

False dichotomy. There's also the scenario of someone being fucked while they're unconscious by a stranger, which is also rape. Or if someone verbally says yes with a knife held to their throat, which is also rape. Let's not dumb it down to a 2-option thing.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:50 PM
1

If I can count my money enough to purchase a burrito then I can count my pubic hairs enough to let a guy go down on my coochie snorter.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:45 PM
1

Yes, on top of theft of her money.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:44 PM
1

Did the prohibition laws not include women too? I wish I'd gotten to watch more than just the premiere of Boardwalk Empire :(
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:44 PM
1

I think we should forbid stores from selling things to women unless they can pass a sobriety test from a police officer. It's only fair. We should probably stop them from voting and from leaving the house until they also pass sobriety tests. It's for their own protection, amirite?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:43 PM
1

However our inclinations might be altered while intoxicated, I resent terms like 'incapacitated' being thrown around. She clearly was consenting, and thus able to consent. The issue is whether or not we consider the mind it came from legitimate, I guess. There's as much evidence of her being compromised as for him, zilch, so I don't see why either party should be prosecuted. It's not as if he spiked her punch.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:41 PM
1

Epic, I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:39 PM
1

Being a minor doesn't necessarily mean that we'll philosophically make an exception to what we classify as rape. We can outlaw USWAM without lumping it in with assault. I hate the term 'disabled'. Only vegetables or the dead are utterly disabled, mentally speaking. How about 'mentally compromised' and we actually specify what we're talking about? There are all kinds of brain maladies and not all of them interfere with good decisionmaking.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:38 PM
0

Can the namecalling please stop? I'm sick of trollcalling. A bunch of irrelevant ad hominem attacks. Like I give a fuck if someone believes what they say or not. Either a post makes sense or it doesn't, motives be damned.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:36 PM
1

What did she lie about? Saying she was raped, for one, since the video clearly shows her consenting enthusiastically. Although I am a bit confused by the 'throughout'.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:35 PM
1

That other female student interviewed on the news program is probably part of that problem.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:34 PM
1

If you can show that you were sufficiently incapcitated when you signed a contract (or made a will) Please stop saying 'incapacitated'. The word you're looking for is 'compromised'. Anyway, I think consent should only be voided if someone was drugged against their will. If someone was drugged with consent then they should be held liable for those decisions.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:32 PM
1

we'd have to decide what incapacitated means. Is it only if you're so out of it you can't stand up? Or just if your judgment is a little unsound? Or somewhere in between, where you'd make potentially harmful decisions (like say public sex). It's if you can't stand up. Unsound judgement and 'potentially harmful decisions' are things people do while sober. Incapacitated means 'unable to act'. Not 'can act, but not perfectly'
/r/MensRights30/10/13 12:31 PM
1

she wouldn't have done if it she hadn't been so drunk, indicating that she was incapacitated Being influenced by tipsiness isn't the same as being incapacitated. She was conscious. Only unconscious people are incapacitated. This woman was standing under her own power, posing for pictures, thrusting her crotch up into his face/fingers, smiling, looking around, etc. Watch the damn video.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:58 AM
1

You and I both know that if that video never came out, she never would have made that accusation. Not necessarily. There were pictures too. If it was just pics and not a full video she still might've made it :)
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:58 AM
1

If she felt that she wouldn't have consented without being so drunk, her claim isn't in the wrong Yes it fucking is, unless a girl's passed out or utterly incomprehensible it can be hard to tell if she's drunk, it shouldn't be a guy's burden to do that. Also completely ignoring that the man was also drinking and may have been more intoxicated. Let's also ignore the two men who apparently assaulted this guy on the street afterward. Are police even looking into charges for that? Read about this in…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:57 AM
1

It wouldn't be a false report if she didn't lie, felt it was rape, but was legally incorrect. True, but I'm not convinced of any remote plausibility that she actually 'felt it was rape'. She filed the charges because the video went viral. Even if she had no memory of the incident, that was there to fill in the holes and make it obvious she was pulling him onto her and stuff. If she hadn't seen the video and was being told misleading shit (like how Daily Mail initially reported) like "oh there's …
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:55 AM
1

Why do you oppose the international heteronormative association transcending emotionally minded extremist nuns?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:26 AM
1

Since you brought them up, I've begun to wonder, considering that presumably, homosexuals are not the majority of the population, why is it that something like NAMBLA (an organization with a focus on homosexual age-disparate relations) has grown to greater size and notoriety than a heterosexual equivalent? Could it be that some kind of "NAMGLA" would be immediately burned down because there is more concern and protectiveness about girls? Perhaps NAMBLA proliferates because society collectively i…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:24 AM
4

the show naturally will contain a Jewish man with a fake petition support the cutting of boys. "It's just a bloody BJ." Dude, I think you just stumbled across a genius idea here. Someone has to run with this. I would suggest some kind of "prevent religious discrimination in coming of age ceremonies" petition where you pretend to be a Catholic priest lobbying for the same rights to engage in Mezizah B'peh that mohels enjoy. Or better yet, advocate that it be mandatory for hospitals to make meziza…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:20 AM
2

These people are not consistent. If they were, they would be campaigning against non-consensual genital mutilation, not female genital mutilation. If you lobby against FGM then you are pro-MGM by nature of omission. The apathy is the allowance.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:18 AM
2

Why, so you can enjoy living with a hypocrite who defends a sexist reality?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:15 AM
2

"female circumcision" is a term used pretty broadly and non-specifically. Since circumcise means "cut around" and in men refers to prepuce removal, to me, it should only mean hoodectomies in women.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:06 AM
3

You would sign it to make a point? Any reason to sign it is ignoring that it is immoral to mutilate the genitals of children, either sex. Signing it to make a point is not immoral. If the brief allowance of genital mutilation of a small amount of females in America (honestly how many would this happen to? 100? It's not that popular a procedure and would probably be limited to some immigrants) leads to cultural outrage that bans it for both genders, protecting hundreds of thousands (millions?) of…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:05 AM
3

Altice was interviewed by police officers, and was eventually booked into the Davis County Jail on two felony counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. Good ol' USWAM, like what Polanski pled to. I greatly prefer this term to 'statutory rape' since it's not necessarily actually rape just because we don't acknowledge the validity of one party's consent.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:01 AM
1

God, can we do less bitching about the use of neutral language from reporters in woman-on-boy cases and focus more on the lack of neutral language used in man-on-girl cases? I swear it's like a 10:1 ratio of what I see in topics here. I think our policy should be, since this subreddit gets flooded with this shit, to strive to find TWO cases, with similar ages of older party and younger party (with opposite genders) and then analyze the reporting differences. We don't get very far looking at them…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:00 AM
1

Lacking preceding or succeeding contexts does not mean its meaning is being altered, as the phrase 'out of context' often implies.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:56 AM
3

The problem of them being considered sciences probably won't go away until universities stop making 'bachelor of science' degrees available for them, sadly. I actually would not be opposed to it if psychology cleaned itself up a bit and threw out this shit and focused on the logical and tested approaches.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:55 AM
1

There's a reason you can get a 'bachelor of arts' degree in psychology but not math.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:54 AM
1

rape fantasy is vastly more common in women I'm open to this idea, but I guess to be impartial I should ask 'source'. While this is probably more predominant in novels aimed at women, so I can take that from the literary world, but it might be counterbalanced by a greater degree of male-on-female rape in mediums like visual novels (story games) and anime. Although there's a significant portion of female-on-male rape in that stuff as well. Plus, hell, if one looks at the different ways rape is po…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:53 AM
2

This is why people who advocate for STEM fields are resistant to the expansion into STEAM. Psychology is an arts degree and with this shit leaking into it, no wonder it's losing credibility. It's sad that intelligent strategies like cognitive behavioural therapy through recognition of logical distortions gets lumped in along with this crap. LOLyesOK, could you please give us more information about your Psy101 book? When was it published? Who wrote the section this is from? What page is it?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:51 AM
5

this subreddit is really not about disputing which gender is more oppressed Not the central purpose, but it's fine for us to discuss this since feminists frequently play the 'women are more oppressed so our issues take priority' card. to use them to prove that men are oppressed than women, to me, is counterproductive to our goals How so? Dismantling female bullshit about us being privileged and lacking discrimination compared to them is very much productive to our goals of contradicting the fuel…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:48 AM
1

trope averted in King of the Hill
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:47 AM
5

Way to sensationailze. Recognizing that women are punished more lightly for crimes and frequently get off scott-free without punishment for them in comparison to men is not the same as saying that it's legal for them and they're never punished.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:46 AM
5

this is the sort of thing that reinforces my beliefs as a feminist. I don't think women should get better treatment in divorce cases, and I certainly think a woman who commits a crime should get the same punishment as a man who commits the same crime The feminist movement is not interested in correcting these imbalances. When have you ever seen feminists campaigning for longer sentences against female criminals? Railing against preferential female custody? Protesting child support payments or al…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:45 AM
16

You should not defriend feminist facebook friends, instead, exploit them so they can water your crops on Farmville 2, never knowing that they are helping the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:34 AM
2

I guess that makes me a horrible person if I find this or this or this humorous then?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:33 AM
2

In terms of a net sum, sure. 5% idiots in 1000 is 50 while it's only 5 in 100. But do you think the relative percentage would also increase? Is the theory here that more intelligent people are able to find and have the courage to ascribe to fringe movements, but as it expands, the less intelligent will become aware of the movement and be more confident about lending their weight to it?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:31 AM
1

SMF seems to think that there's room to list sources in detail on such posters. Admittedly it would be nice to have some if people dispute claims. Perhaps in posters like this, they could link to a web page, which could have room to list the sources in detail.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:30 AM
1

I understand it but I had to have you guys explain it to me. TBH by the time I finished reading I forgot where it was crossposted from and didn't ask. Cute puppy though.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:28 AM
3

Old men get some level of sympathy, at least compared to other men. I'd say they get ranked below all kinds of women and children, but they still get some.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:28 AM
3

Depends on the state. Although even those without death penalties could have him die via in-prison violence or extra-prison vigilantism.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:26 AM
4

Looking at the "Manson" example, is he in a prison or a 'loony bin'? We should perhaps look beyond periods of incarceration to quality of life at these places.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:26 AM
3

Prison is a fucked up place and it should be reserved for only the most depraved of individuals. Could you clarify what you mean here? I'm more concerned with danger and destructiveness than I am depravity.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:25 AM
3

If the masculine seeks rigidity, why are there men able to do the splits?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:24 AM
14

I agreed with the metaphor up until the end where you insinuated women were like children Do you understand what satire is? The poster is being sarcastic. It's not literally advocating that women are children, but rather highlighting that the law is treating them like they are. It is meant to invoke outrage and make the reader think "why are they saying this?". A delay, and some might get the purpose of the comment.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:21 AM
17

I think everyone is so on-board the bandwagon that they totally forget that just because he/she is drunk doesn't mean it wasn't rape. That's a load of shit, we're not idiots.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:19 AM
8

Not necessarily, pedestrians hardly consent to be hit by cars (for the most part) and in most scenarios we're talking about women who voluntarily have drunk sex with volunteering (perhaps also drunk) men. Even with 'passenger', though less wrong, I think it's trying to hard to get an analogical match when it's not possible due to nature differences in the acts. In the car crash analogy, cars are not men, cars are the act of sex itself.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:18 AM
19

No he isn't, stop your bullshit goalpost-moving and strawman-arguing. The issue here is women having drunk sex and calling rape, not women showing skin and being raped. If you mean to criticize cyn's involving 'slut walks' which were about a separate issue though, okay I get that much, but it's possible to light on that without jumping to conclusions.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:16 AM
2

They say in that photo (assuming it's the same woman, unclear) that she's "passed out" but I just see someone lying down. You can lie down to rest from a hangover or something without being passed out. What a crock of biased shit. Victim-shaming: Some online users have been attacking the woman saying that she is crying rape This was said of this comment: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/16/article-2462551-18C4AFC500000578-751_306x500.jpg The person is making a proper observation. It is cer…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:02 PM
1

What fairness? DM should get to publish whatever unconfirmed rumors they like as if they were facts because they don't want to do any fucking research?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:01 PM
1

the wikipedia on blackouts indicates a person can be conscious, seemingly able to give consent, and be blackout drunk. Wikipedia is kind of full of shit sometimes. What sources support the idea that you can be conscious and "blacked out" simultaneously? These seem like opposite ideas to me. Someone forgetting that they consented should not disqualify their consent. If being blackout drunk means you can't consent then consenting and then getting hit by a car and forgetting you said yes should als…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:54 PM
1

Useful information, thanks. I don't suppose there were any audio bites of the Q & no?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:53 PM
1

Someone drunkenly passed out, much like someone who is sleeping, may have given consent allowing another party to have sex with them while unconscious though. Not to mention that people can consciously consent to sex and pass out DURING THE ACT. I think people should reasonably have to withdraw consent to sex for it to be wrong at that point. Of course it should be on an act-by-act basis. Like if a woman consents to vaginal sex and then falls asleep while you're doing it together, it shouldn't b…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:52 PM
2

thanks, I love time tags
/r/MensRights29/10/13 12:19 PM
1

we set an age at which a person has presumably enough experience to successfully defend themselves from disastrous predation Key word: presumably. Why should we base law on mental presumptions derived from biological characteristics when we can directly assess knowledge? It's fundamentally flawed in the same was as making assumptions based on being elderly, of either gender, or of certain ethnicities. the argument by many, is that women can't be sexual predators. part of this assertion is that t…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 12:18 PM
1

Simply by merit of being able to move around at 300lbs you're probably going to have more muscle than him though, even if you don't aesthetically look bigger or more ripped.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:38 AM
2

surely it would diminish the credibility of the rape claim? In terms of securing a conviction, I imagine it would make it tougher, but impartially speaking it would not alter whether or not one consented to an act. It's impossible to consent after the fact. But people embracing something after the fact makes people skeptical of their being initial lack of consent. I would think that the applicable standards would be of the two who are engaging in the act. Not an acceptable means, we need to have…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:37 AM
1

Thread exists on subject elsewhere here I think.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:36 AM
1

Interesting. I suppose women are unable to buy monster costumes which men often wear. Something tells me there's more sexism in that a man faces death if he dresses up as a sexy nurse (I doubt women face that threat if they dress up as dracula) than women being provided the option.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:33 AM
0

Cruelty or sexism is not necessarily tied to liberties or rights. You can defend someone having equal rights and still treat them rudely. Also losing track of how what you're talking about ties into the case.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:32 AM
1

Ah... okay so it has to do with concentration... but does alcohol absorb into fat the same way it does into muscle? I thought muscles had a lot of water in them while fat didn't. I picture alcohol mixing into water easier than with lipids. I guess metabolism would have to do with how quickly you sobered up or reduced accumulating levels?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:30 AM
0

It's sexist to espouse ignorant double standards Ignorance is irrelevant in regard to whether or not something is sexist. A double standard could be sexist if it was a standard taken in regard to sex. I'm not clear that TEW was actually presenting a double standard though. Speaking of his own experience as a boy is not necessarily implying that females are different. Not going out of your way to say that women are equal is not the same as saying they aren't equal. it's disgusting to defend statu…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:29 AM
3

Basically, if you want to expect a man to pay for dinner, you could for example, say "I won't wax my legs if you won't pay for my dinner" But it's fucking ridiculous to go ahead and do it and expect he's agreeing that your waxing is reason enough for him to buy your food.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:28 AM
2

women who liberate themselves from the female gender role cannot and should not judge men who liberate themselves from the male gender role I don't agree with either of these. Everyone can judge each other, and everyone SHOULD judge each other. Judgment isn't necessarily a bad thing. A liberated woman judging a liberated man may judge him to have positive attributes we like. Perhaps we mean 'condemn' rather than 'judge'?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:27 AM
1

It is a desire to interject to feed the ego, not a need to. If it were an unavoidable need I couldn't take weeks off the subreddit to spend time watching TV and interact with nobody whatsoever.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:23 AM
0

Fuck off, feminists didn't invent the term ad hominem or the description of any other logical fallacies. Why on earth would they define terms that would lead to debunking their core arguments against opposition?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:21 AM
2

women who liberate themselves from the female gender role cannot and should not judge men who liberate themselves from the male gender role I don't agree with either of these. Everyone can judge each other, and everyone SHOULD judge each other. Judgment isn't necessarily a bad thing. A liberated woman judging a liberated man may judge him to have positive attributes we like. Perhaps we mean 'condemn' rather than 'judge'?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:20 AM
2

I think you're kinda arguing a strawman here unkle. You say "no one is saying that is the woman's place" but loki did not say that. Loki made the conditional statement "if they accept one societal argument". As in, the expectation of women to do stereotyped feminine things is conditional upon their expectation that a man due stereotyped masculine things. If a woman thinks it's a man's place to pay for dinner when they go out, then all other things equal, it's completely fair to expect her to pre…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:18 AM
5

I see no value in stereotyping any site's userbase. At least SA guys can afford 10 bucks and their forum is a place using forum software that allows for progressive conversation, unlike Jezebel's shitty twitter-like comment feed.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:18 AM
2

I think you're kinda arguing a strawman here unkle. You say "no one is saying that is the woman's place" but loki did not say that. Loki made the conditional statement "if they accept one societal argument". As in, the expectation of women to do stereotyped feminine things is conditional upon their expectation that a man due stereotyped masculine things. If a woman thinks it's a man's place to pay for dinner when they go out, then all other things equal, it's completely fair to expect her to pre…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:16 AM
9

The last part doesn't excuse the first part, since she blames us for what she perceives society as pressuring her to do. If women don't want to pay for haircuts they are free to shave their heads as many men do. Last I checked, Wal-Mart charges equal prices to sell electric barber razors so you can DIY.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:13 AM
1

Specific examples like cars aside, those shitposts utterly ignore that: men also have expenses in their life (substitute gym membership for hot wax) women are not obligated to do those things and could still get guys without it
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:12 AM
1

The animated GIFs in the OP's link seem to have some conflicting messages. While I agree with some of them, others I do not. the first image for example, alleges the existence of patriarchy and that rape culture is part of it. She then goes on later to say that it's not part of patriarchy... which seems like she's contradicting herself, unless her meaning has been lost in translation here. ... rather than erase what I just typed, I just noticed that the initial picture is in quotes while the sub…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:09 AM
2

Cracker hurts my feelings. Hell, can anyone even prove that the N-word hurts black people's feelings more than Cracker hurts white people's? Whenever I hear the C-word (no feminists, not cunt) it's a reminder of the double-sided "hey, we can be verbally racist to you however you like, and you have to take it, but no tit-for-tat, or it's license for us to engage in mass violence with the applause of the people". If we were to poll the populace, how frequently would the idea of it being okay to as…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:45 PM
0

It's this bullshit strawmanning that apparently if we say "defend yourself by doing X" that we're blaming people who don't do X as if they are at fault for what occurs, which is made-up poppyshit.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:42 PM
1

Stop blaming the victim, we should teach arsonists not to burn and snow not to cold.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:40 PM
1

We can't do that! That would be blaming the children! We'll get started on your needed "teach ransomers not to kidnap" campaign right after we finish the "teach villains not to burgle" tour where people unlock their doors en masse in a show of solidarity.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:40 PM
1

Sometimes I wonder, is the ability to metabolize alcohol properly attributed to body mass, or perhaps to total muscle mass? I can imagine gaining 20lbs of muscle making me burn through fuel faster, but not 20lbs of fat, basically.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:39 PM
1

This Susie O'Brien intrigues me with her logic. Seems feminists love to turn on and strawman all opposition, including women, who don't buy into their victim culture.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:36 PM
0

Her uterus, her choice; her penis, his choice; I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. I think the last two possessive pronouns might be mixed up
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:35 PM
0

Out of curiousity, what product was being discussed here? I have to admit, I don't see it as trollish (implies that's not your opinion, clearly those guys at AskFeminists don't know what trolling means) and obnoxious... well... that's a subjective "ew, gross" type of description so I can't say it's not... But I could say that AskFeminists could perceive any non-feminist posting there as 'obnoxious' and shame them away, so it's a shit policy.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:34 PM
0

Why is it that many of those who are so pessimistic about the value of sustained argument against stubborn opposition stubbornly cling to some perceived value in throwing insults at that opposition instead of ignoring them and moving on to opponents one enjoys engaging civilly?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:29 PM
1

'Anecdotal feels' gets closer to the actual problem, which is the assumption that his own hypothesized happiness or even remembered desire would necessarily translate to other males (because "we're all the same", as misandric feminists often tell us) An additional problem is the idea that 'happy to be in the position' is implied to disqualify something from being a big deal. A counter-analogy here would be how a guy might be happy to be in the place of poopering a hot prostitute, but getting HIV…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:27 PM
1

He's totally ok with women raping boys. Or rather, can't understand the problem with children not being able to consent. So... you're contradicting the first statement with the second? If you think someone doesn't understand an issue, why is that being called trolling? Trolling is when people pretend to hold stupid viewpoints to piss people off, not when they legitimately hold a stupid viewpoint due to ignorance. "Society generally accepts" isn't a wholesome rebuttal to your opposition. It seems…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:23 PM
1

Thank you for clarifying this, I understand the context you mean now. Kind of like "Wolverine is the new Batman" not necessarily referring to Dark Claw. Even so, surely it is more practical to debunk why we disagree with an allegation of nonsense/strawing rather than simply slap the label and comment on its frequency?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:20 PM
1

then were is the line? Can a 31 year old have sex with a 14 year old? 9 year old? a 19 year old mentally handicapped? What if the 9 year old consents. 'Can' isn't the ideal verb since clearly this occurs. 'Should' or 'should we permit' are closer. Much as I love math, I don't think we have digitized the information required to make good choices here, so viability of consent should be directly measured by analysis of knowledge. The closest numbers should get is a test score. Emancipation too, sho…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:18 PM
1

he words his opinion as "Satutory Rape is no big deal. So yeah, he should be downvoted." Who are you quoting here?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:14 PM
1

Er, to clarify, I'm saying the government should pay the police to keep the peace, not saying they should volunteer.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:13 PM
1

I imagine there is a distinction in meaning between 'more rare' and 'less frequent'. I would hate to say 'more rare' if it was still happening in the majority of cases, for example. Seeing as how 'more' implies it was rare to begin with, and I'm doubtful it was ever rare.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:12 PM
1

Well, I guess everyone is potentially dangerous, some more than others. There's examples of dangerous people in the world who react to stuff.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:11 PM
1

Does this mean if a guy says "I consent to have sex with you only if you agree to abort and pregnancies that may occur as a result" and she refuses to have an abortion that she raped him?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:10 PM
1

every man who has pursued any career has been encouraged by everyone he ever met. I'm having a bad day, I had to pause a moment to sense the sarcasm :(
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:09 PM
1

It was actually the woman who mutilated herself with the knife But it says... The victim claimed the woman carved his first initial onto her arm with a pocket knife. Well shit. I read that wrong. So we're left with choking as the assault, which is still kinda serious. Although being that choking is a form of sex play (just ask David Carradine) and teen boys have willingly engaged in it perhaps I shouldn't be making the assumption that it's assault? This was an ongoing relationship. Why would the…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:08 PM
1

If it was in the dark and the girl didn't have much (if any) experience with penises, it might've been after the deed was over.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:59 PM
2

Why should it be? The stage appears to be that accusations have been filed, charges pressed, but no conviction. We shouldn't be throwing words like rape around until there's a conviction. According to a sheriff's report, the victim had a hard time leaving Dixon's home. On several occasions when he tried to go home, she became upset, locked the door and even choked him. The victim claimed the woman carved his first initial onto her arm with a pocket knife. He told his parents about the relationsh…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:58 PM
2

So rather than engaging the content of this guy's argument, you're namecalling him as a moron? Surely moronic arguments are easily argued against. With such ease available, why not simply do so rather than sidestep it to engage in low-tier bullying?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:55 PM
1

TEW never said 'it's not a big deal to rape' or 'it was okay to rape'. Sth and Blaine you're both strawmanning TEW here. Accusing others of being trolls is not constructive conversation. It's distracting ad hominem.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:54 PM
1

How was sexism established in the opinion? Are we downvoting people we think are disgusting now? I thought downvoting was for irrational badly reasoned posting.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:53 PM
1

I just assumed that if hordes of women were taking steps to to be raped, I'd have heard about it by now. Why would you assume this? I think the inherent nature of such acts would be subtle. If willingness to "be raped" were actually communicated to others, that would serve as a form of consent and negate the rape aspect of the sex. I'm not talking about a fucking child! I'm talking about a sexually mature teenager! In this context there's a HUGE fucking difference. People love to play with buzz …
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:52 PM
1

I don't think that's really an applicable analogy i do. Cool story bros. Leve, could you start with why you think analogizing these things is relevant? Here's the problem I have with it: by legalizing rape, you inherently remove protection from people who do not desire sex. The standard rape barriers would still exist were we to allow teen guys to bone cougars, so their protection against things they don't consent to would not be removed. most children, given the opportunity, would live on a die…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:50 PM
1

I commend you from reading further into the article than I did, I completely missed that quote and was assuming she was keeping him kidnapped for a prolonged period on 1 occasion without reoccurance.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:47 PM
3

I don't like how we resort to SRS paranoia whenever someone voices an opinion that deviates from the norm. Sock or not, all should be engaged. You're engaging in ad hominem rather than addressing the arguments.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:46 PM
1

Understanding is something that occurs from knowledge, wisdom. While those are acquired over time, the rate at which this occurs is not fixed, it is not automatic, nor does it have a stated minimum.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:41 PM
0

I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is. Straw manning is when you attribute an argument to someone who has not made that argument. Often done by rephrasing improperly so as to change an argument, or incorrectly interpret and wrongly summarize another's viewpoints or statements. Accusing someone of not making sense isn't a straw man in any shape or form. It's an accusation about someone's logic (basically "you're wrong!") and not actually presenting someone's argument. To give an example…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:40 PM
11

Hopefully 24 year olds Lee James and Stephen Norley will be severely punished for this hate crime. I hate that it's even necessary to provide "nothing bad was found on his computer" and "had not taken indecent images" disclaimers. Neither, even if they would true, would justify this shit. Hopefully whoever contributed to the rumor mongering will also be held accountable by their communities for contributing to this.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:31 PM
1

Child Support Services? I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Or at least it's a bit ambiguous. Makes me think of collection agencies. if you are revulsed by the idea of a 31 M having sex with a 14 F, then you should be equally revulsed by a adult woman and a boy. Because shouldn't the revulsion be an adult having sex with a child, regardless of gender? Revulsion could be affected by other factors as well, such as mental retardation of either party. I don't think we should 'should' re…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:01 PM
2

if you have a problem with 31 M/14 F but not 31F /14 M then yeah, you should be downvoted for holding a sad and pathetic double standard. So you're pre-emptively downvoting him by assuming he has a different opinion with the genders reversed before even asking?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:00 PM
1

What do you mean by 'kids'? That's slang and there isn't consistency on where the line is drawn there. Guy in question was 14. His maturity to consent was not directly evaluated and we are assuming what it was on the basis of his age, which is prejudiced. His capacity to give informed consent is quite irrelevant here though since he allegedly was not giving consent at all by the end of it, and was having sex under the duress of incarceration, which is rape regardless of age statutes.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:00 PM
2

I would have been happy to be in his position as a fourteen year old. You would have been happy to have the woman prevent you from leaving her home and mutilate your body with a knife? It's not merely that she's crazy (which hasn't been established, no trial yet AFAIK) or that it's illegal (I get what you mean about possibly enjoying that back then) but because she deprived him of freedom and assaulted him. I do think it would be interesting if instead of downvoting TEW we simply answered their …
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:58 PM
1

Could you explain how the Huff Post article by... ??? (don't you love how authors of Huffington Post articles are accountable by signing their names?) either defends or minimizes this alleged rape? I'm saying 'alleged' because the wording of this Oct 14 article has wording like "accused of" and "charged with", so I don't know if it's actually gone to trial yet. Much like if a man is accused of rape, we should not speak as if they are guilty until they have received a fair trial to test the alleg…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:56 PM
1

I have to question the notability of the poster GKX is bringing up. The page it links to, https://www.facebook.com/GoRed is simply some user's profile with merely 436 followers, sporting some strange pet dog in drag as an image. https://www.goredforwomen.org/ and http://www.world-heart-federation.org/what-we-do/awareness/go-red-for-women/ show it as a real campaign, but that poster in particular... meh Guys since I just saw "The Dark Knight Returns Part II" on Teletoon last Friday, I would like …
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:44 PM
2

FFS who cares about "have sex"? Rape IS sex. The problem is feminists whining about rape being called 'sex'. The closest problem here is they'll have double standards about what they will complain about the terminology being used with (cases with alleged female victims more than male ones) Keep in mind that the way it's worded in the title and for the most part, the 31 "had sex" with the 14yo. Had they worded it the other way around and presented the 14yo as the actor, I could see some limited f…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:40 PM
32

Apparently "I thought he would marry me if I fucked him and he didn't" is rape in India.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 10:00 AM
4

When the head of the Patriarchy Party is interviewed on Honey Badger Radio the conversation is even more deeply penetrating.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:59 AM
1

Actually, the Movember movement is more like the equivalent to searching for the cure for Ovarian cancer. Which the WWE and TNA curiously avoid like... cancer.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:57 AM
2

I am confused by this bubble concept because I got "men should not wear shorts" and "women should not wear pants" and neither topic is one I recall having encountered. I guess you could get a neutral result if you did such an experiment from an unused/wiped computer though.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:16 AM
1

You're wrong about that loki. http://i.imgur.com/TQFeJ3l.jpg "Men should all die" is pretty misandric. You don't get that for women. The "be in the kitchen" stuff is harsh, but not as harsh as wishing death on people. Being told we can't multitask, need to man up, can't hold a friendship, shouldn't cry, also seems bad.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:15 AM
2

speaking of screenshots, took 8 of testing the 4 phrases for men and women and put'm together in 1 image: I imagine this might vary a bit from what results others get as google search trends could change over time. No telling what google-bombing may have influenced this. Sometimes Google incorporates suggestions based on your favourites too (I removed one that cropped up a couple times) http://i.imgur.com/TQFeJ3l.jpg In terms of negative stuff, what I see for men: need to ejaculate, need to man …
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:06 AM
6

or, y'know, if you're rich, in which case you automatically get a lot of rewards without having to take the risks many opt to take to earn their wealth
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:42 AM
8

I think I recognize having read your initially quoted statement somewhere before, though I don't recall where. It frustrates me because it's posing 2 options as far as I can tell. 1) women are saying "all guys are rapists" and the guy takes them at their word and doesn't make assumptions about meanings behind meanings. The guy is blamed for taking them literally and not seeing it as some metaphorical expression for a bunch of more conservative opinions they haven't actually stated. 2) women are …
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:40 AM
4

Who brought his past into it? I don't give a shit if someone's an ex-con they can still be assaulted and we should treat them fairly when weighing the evidence.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:15 AM
3

I contemplated a job offer at Allens, one of Australia’s top-tier law firms. A friend who was already working there told me a joke I took my tits to the academy instead. Not sure which academy Alicia Simmons is talking about, but if a joke is what causes someone to make up their mind about whether or not they accept a job at a law firm, THAT is more likely the reason we don't see many women in them and why they fail to succeed at the same rate or climb as high. Perhaps fewer women make partner b…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:56 AM
2

Are men sent off to die and be maimed in wars for the benefit so society, women included? I think you mean "of society" ?
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:42 AM
2

Great, more of this 'I'm circumcised so I don't need a condom' African bullshit. Hopefully there is some kind of Rwandan memicide to wipe out those currently in power at their Ministry of "Health". Also why not link to the full article? http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/in-rwanda-circumcision-is-all-the-rage/health-hiv-africa-prevention-stds/c3s12218/
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:51 PM
8

Sadly yes. As fun as it would be to piss them off, these are potentially dangerous individuals who might engage in violence.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:50 PM
2

So it's not just door to door then... man it sickens me.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:50 PM
9

burst into some beyonce Including dance moves?
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:49 PM
32

Your rebuttal was a legitimate sort of "it's not PEOPLE supporting women" and she ignores your reasoning and engages in namecalling. What a b...oisterous individual.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:49 PM
1

Lack of religiosity I can't take this seriously until Catholic schools stop getting public funding.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:48 PM
1

No one's broken the ice I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:46 PM
2

Oh c'mon, that's a clever quip, no reason to downvote guys. Although Pigman, considering that at least 2 notable female MRAs (dem badgers) are Canadian, we should at least be gender neutral in our temperature comments.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:46 PM
3

We should want to know if someone is being accused of it. It's wrong to assume guilt just because there's some video file. I mean hell, she could've been changing a diaper and videotaping it or some weirdness. There should be consequences for that (there's no reason to tape that) but I'm not sure it should be called rape until we know more.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:44 PM
2

Some might (and so might some conservatives) but I doubt it's the major position of either party at this point in time.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:43 PM
3

Any details about what the video actually shows? The Fox article seems pretty vague about it. Says "engaging in sexual conduct" which could a describe a lot of things (including things which could've been misinterpreted) besides actual sexual intercourse or what we call rape. Until knowing more about what the video file has, I'm hesitant to condemn this person based merely on others' interpretations.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:43 PM
4

These troll accusations are getting ridiculous around here. The accusations themselves smell more of trolling than the things they're accusing in many cases. 'Survivor' is perfectly fine for people to use in the case of false accusations since, like rape, people have been killed in association with them. Not everyone can afford lawyers (so far as I'm aware these only come free if you're being prosecuted for a crime, not if you're filing for personal damages after charges are dropped) and people …
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:40 PM
1

had to sit in jail for 30 days over this, and could not apply for any jobs due to background check showing what I was arrested for and thus out of work for several months. Since you said the charge was dropped, shouldn't that be wiped from your record? Or are you talking about it being on the record during the period prior to the charges being dropped? Ideally either the system should compensate an innocent for their lost time and trouble, or else the accuser should, in cases like this. How clos…
/r/MensRights06/10/13 06:40 PM
2

I understand how it applies to fatherless/motherless but not how it applies to man/woman. Let's say hypothetically (and I don't believe this) being raised by your dad made you twice as likely to kill yourself as being raised by your mom. Let's say there's a suicide pandemic and this meant that 1/2 and 1/4. Now let's say that out of 20 people, only 4 were raised by fathers, and 16 by mothers. Based on the ratios I chose, out of that group, 2 father-raised committed suicide and 4 mother-raised com…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:06 AM
1

Isn't saying the shot is due to bumblingness as much an assumption as the consideration of malice?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:50 AM
0

you wouldn't call a theater company sexist because they wouldn't hire a woman to play Othello because it's a male part. Actually I would, people can play characters of the opposite gender. It's not necessarily sexism I would punish though.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:47 AM
1

You do know why a troll does what a troll does, right? It gets a rise out of people. This guy is no better. Part of the problem is since whether or not someone is a troll depends on a contrast between word and opinion, and we can only ever know the former and not the latter (just guess) there's always a lack of certainty. I've seen too many honest-seeming folk dismissed with troll-labelling. There are genuine bigots out there too. You're writing as if we're discussing something hypothetical inst…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:46 AM
1

Okay I found the clip, added a timestamp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jy7ceLVVgU&t=40 Her voice appears overlayed a previous scene before it switches to him climbing out of the pool. She says "you are a lowly pathetic psychopath" Stuff like lowly/pathetic is a pretty subjective insult, so whether or not it's wrong depends on someone's standards I guess. As for psychopath, I'm not clear on what attributes someone has to have to be diagnosed with it. I don't know much about the character. Based…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:41 AM
1

whoops, meant her
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:33 AM
0

Both CAN portray Storm in X-men though. Men have portrayed women in theater, and vice versa. Women are known for portraying Peter Pan, for example. Why should racism and sexism be allowed for drama but not for food-serving if a restaurant has a theme? if you need a white actor to play a white man, it is of course acceptable to only hire male white employees only for that position That sure worked out for the Kingpin in Daredevil didn't it?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:33 AM
2

Upon rethinking this, since the use of dildos and stuff can also be involved a rape, I guess it is possible to engage in rape and remain a virgin. But stereotypically speaking, I instinctively assume the majority of rape is stereotypical "this is considered sex by society" type actions, I guess.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:31 AM
3

There is a difference between judging a man by the amount of sex he has with women and lauding rapists. Yup, but I don't recall saying the two things were identical or that someone having 1 opinion meant they had the other. I just see them as linked lines of thinking. If what we do is establish a man's worth by the sex he's had, full stop, no other details discussed, then that lack of elaboration leads to the 'I need sex' not 'I need consenting sex' line of thought. Objectification is over-diagn…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:30 AM
1

This is a terrible misrepresentation of rape Please cite which portion of my post you think is misrepresenting rape. I used the word "can". the vast majority either want to rape, not simply get laid, or do not consider what they are doing rape - they are psychopaths. I form no opinions about what the majority are, I am not convinced enough data has been collected. However, regarding the "psychopaths" (not sure that is an appropriate label) who do not consider what they are doing as rape: wouldn'…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:27 AM
2

I'll grant that in certain circles, "keeping your woman in line" is seen as positive or manly, but in the real world where most of us live Which 'real world'? The western world? I haven't seen enough of the world to make sweeping generalizations and I imagine most of us here haven't either. it's seen as very troubling to have any violence in your household or relationship True, but in contrast it could be seen as even more troubling to have a disobedient spouse. Regardless of what predominates (…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:25 AM
1

The statement did not say 'this is the procedure in ALL cases' though, so the sometimes-exceptions do not nullify that some conflicts proceed that way. There is truth in the statement, it is just situational truth, not absolute truth. Situational truth can still be profound or insightful (though neither are adjectives I am comfortable applying to anything, they weird me out) and no, not 'pure noise'. I hate that expression. Nothing verbal is purely noise. Nothing.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:23 AM
1

We self-police by engaging in argument with those who say things we object to. This can take more time than simply deleting a comment. It is preferable to censorship. If others blame an entire group because of the comments of one, simply because we believe in free speech, that is their error (or intentional obfuscation).
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:21 AM
2

I've always been trained to do by society is look down on "rapists" or men that physically abuse women. It isn't just me.. the vast majority of men are trained to that True, but society has many faces to it, it is not a uniform entity. I'm not going to waste time bickering about what's fringe vs mainstream, there's no easy way to resolve that kind of classification. Men don't really think that rape is manly. Some men (probably most) do not, but some (probably a minority) do. Making statements wi…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:20 AM
0

I'm lazy, link me up with the article (or two?) you're talking about, particularly any excerpts you think are the most interesting. Fun as AVFM articles are, one can get lazy and not want to read every single one of them considering how many comments they all have, for those of us who feel obligated to read all the comments.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:19 AM
2

I'd wager that too. A lot of the times such things are meant to invoke sympathy for victims moreso than to glorify by wanting to live in the role of the antagonist. Inevitably some people are going to define manliness or womanliness to include bad attributes, and I think all definitions are just made-up. Short of a project with standards set on what to include there's little point bickering about what is or isn't (wo)manly.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:18 AM
3

do all the memes about attacking guys in the nuts for the smallest reasons indicate that it is womanly to physically abuse men? To those who ascribe to them, yes. What is considered manly or womanly is subjective. The traits, be they virtue or vice, associated with either gender, is mostly stereotype. It'd be interesting to see an effort to set standards for what is required to associate something with 1 gender over the other in terms or argument or evidence. Prior to such an effort, the terms m…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:16 AM
-1

Someone who identifies as a queer and as an anarchist, is what it means. I see no reason to belittle that. This is basically a union of two parts. So which do you guys have a problem with? The term anarchist or the term queer?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:35 AM
1

Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation. ...I think I like these guys. I'm confused at why they're opposing the MRA movement in Toronto. Who is pulling their strings? They've clearly been misinformed.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:34 AM
1

He spends a significant amount of time in this article dismissing and belittling a huge section of the LGBT movement. He constructs the "good queer," someone who rejects feminism and LGBT activism So your problem is that he doesn't except feminists who are LGBT from his habit of belitting feminists in general? I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. He gives queer men absolutely no credit for their own experiences, transforming them into the victims he needs to save. That's your general…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:31 AM
0

By refusing gays the right to get married, we are also refusing them many other rights taken for granted by the rest of the population. Like the rights refused to single people, since single people do not enjoy the rights that married people do. As someone who wants to abolish government involvement with marriage, allowing the government recognition of same-sex marriage is a step backward as it removes allies and creates more enemies.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:21 AM
5

Yup, it's like calling any atheist who doesn't want to join 'atheism plus' a misogynist racist homophobe.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:19 AM
1

I couldn't watch all of the video as the feminists chants where getting annoying Man up! I listen to annoying shit all the time. We shouldn't just pretend annoying stuff doesn't exist! At least say 'won't' rather than 'can't' in recognition of your agency.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:18 AM
2

ugh don't downvote this genius humor
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:04 AM
2

Pro tip: at every MRA rally we should keep a couple guys willing to make out with each other in reserve. Don't to it until 'homophobe' starts getting chanted, at which point, the 2 hero-bros start doing a "I hate those gays!" "Yeah, me too!" and then start making out to confuse the onlookers. Bonus points if we can get a couple girls doing it too, extra bonus if we have some mixed-race couples.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:04 AM
3

or "glomping" when girls do it to you at anime cons
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:02 AM
3

I don't think you need to be hateful to say something like that, but certainly the tone in which her comments were made seemed hateful.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 11:51 PM
1

Whoever said it, I'm not sure they meant to imply that this is always the order of things, just that's how it progresses if things are working.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 11:50 PM
2

These aren't logical, rational human beings. They aren't used to questioning the info that is spoonfed into their minds. Let's not be too harsh here. Someone can still be logical/rational and question SOME of the info they're spoonfed while not exercising such habits for all things. Plenty of rational folk out there become selective idiots for those things they have emotional attachments to.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 11:47 PM
7

It's always been unmanly to physically abuse a woman. No, it hasn't. Otherwise phrases like 'keep your pimp hand strong' would not have propogated. There have always been mixed views on the issue.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 09:31 PM
1

I do, or at least there's a manga out there called "I Want to Rape Takanashi Rikka Until She Cries" so clearly some bro is thinking it at least hypothetically. In b4 'immoral men are not men' bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 09:29 PM
5

Feminists and women contribute to the problem but are not the sole cause of it (even if they may be the main one). We men who shame virgins are also guilty of it. A rapist can't be virgin-shamed, after all. So long as we elevate gaining sex as an accomplishment that makes men better than others, we co-operate in an environment which elevates rapists.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:54 PM
2

one who has to rape clearly isn't "a man" because a real man has women fighting over him You're still making the error of engaging in a 'real man' archtype. Raping men are real men. Men who only engage in consensual sex are real men. Virgin men are real men. Rapists can also have women fighting over him. You treat the two as mutually exclusive things, when they are not. There can be overlap. I don't buy into the 'rape is only about power' nonsense. It certainly can be about sexual frustration, a…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:53 PM
3

Next up, we protest that only women are allowed to portray Storm in X-men films.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:08 AM
5

Could you clarify why this sushi place couldn't make the same exception that Hooters does?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:07 AM
10

The woman I remember from the ad is calling him a "depraved psycho" or something along those lines, right? When he's in a pool? Is that supposed to be a bimbo or a witch? I didn't think of her as either of these things. I thought of her as someone who was mad and using some rude language. Once again, they make accusations of misogyny but apply their own insulting adjectives.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:06 AM
4

Considering that this seems to describe suicide from shame over not fulfilling marital obligations, I imagine that husbands who lose their job and kill themselves could be close... Though it's a bit different though because dowry is something the parents give, so the wife is ashamed of his her parents being poor or cheap. Edit: thanks to Peganpig for correction
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:05 AM
1

Some have a broader usage of 'murder' than others. He shot the man in the gut, so he had motive to do so. We're going to need some compelling reason besides malice argued for, I think. 911 calls support what deputies described at the scene. "Uncle Roy have you lost your mind? What the Hell? Hey, put the knife away," can be heard during one 911 call. Authorities released a total of three 911 calls. The caller can be heard talking about drinking. This is what KREM reported about it (along with a 2…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:00 AM
2

The Victim Called Police to turn himself in for a Warrant for not paying Child support Roy Jacobs Jr. was a victim of excessive force and murdered by those paid to serve and protect. His entire family is distraught and saddened by the events. The victim's nieces are testifying that the knife the man had in the apartment was not in his hands, that it was on a chair behind him, sealed off safely in a case, and that he made no aggressive actions toward the police. It doesn't seem misleading to me. …
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:35 AM
1

But were you in the room? :)
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:26 AM
1

in Walking dead didn't .. ? Yes, major spoiler for anyone new to the series. Not a problem for me but that's a big issue, it'd be cool to edit it out as a courtesy for anyone new to things. I'm not sure either got more protection, prior to the separation they seemed to get lumped together as invalids. It was only later (WAY later) that he began to shine on his own, and prior to that he caused a lot of problems including getting one of my favourite characters killed because he COULDN'T protect hi…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:25 AM
2

I guess that's mortifying to some people. True, but a lot of stuff is mortifying. Going out in public while ugly or fat is mortifying. Or getting a boner where people can see. But people cope, and GWW has a funny phrase about big girl panties that seems to apply.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:21 AM
1

Does it matter whether it is him or his followers? In regard to claims it's the same guy making the posts, yes. I'm not sure why that happens instead of a description of "similar posting habits by multiple accounts operated by an unknown number of persons" or something along those lines. that is in the past year since we became moderators. I don't doubt previous moderators have tried similar things. Nor do I, but people failing to accomplish a goal in the past doesn't mean we should sign it off.…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:20 AM
1

Yes, it is a LITTLE different, but they're essentially the same in spirit, insulting an aspect of the person. On one hand, rube insults intelligence (or is it knowledge?) while BCF insults ... bravery I guess? Maybe utility or agency? Dunno, many contexts to pejoratives. Personally I'd rather be a BCF than a rube though, so I view yours as situationally more hurtful.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:18 AM
1

demonstrated just by the nature of his comments that he hasn't changed too absolute, more realistically the abrasive nature of the comments implies minimal change, inadequate change, but not a complete lack of it still a rude, obnoxious twit and a shallow thinker The last adjective should be the primary concern. I can deal with obnoxious/rude deep thinkers. Of course there's always the possibility prof is actually a deep charade and he draws entertainment from the reactions of followers and oppo…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:15 AM
1

What's the problem? You'd fap to the 34 and you know you would.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:11 AM
1

Why should we ask people who say factually incorrect things to leave? People make mistakes. It's an unrealistic expectation. A lot of us also enjoy sarcasm or satire. As for insults, I can agree to drop or at least heavily diminish those.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:09 AM
1

made a self post to lie for 0 karma and 5 posts of attention. You caught me! Dude I said 'either or'. =/ They said men can't get raped by another man because that was impossible. I wrote about their opinions on prison rape at the bottom Yes, so did you point out that they contradicted themself and changed their stance from 'can't be raped' to 'can be raped in prison but it doesn't matter' ?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:08 AM
-1

Shouldn't police voluntarily attend rallies and speeches and stuff that may potentially have violence, though? Like for example, and I don't know if this applies, but the PRIDE parade?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:06 AM
6

the number of men hasn't decreased When they say 'the number' do they mean the percentage or the net amount? A percentage could decrease while the number remains constant, due to population growth. That's still bad. New men's center should be called men's and trans center. Being that women's shelters exclude transwomen (that's the term MtFs prefer right?) I can see merit in doing that. Plus I'm sure many transmen (FtMs) might prefer to be in a men's shelter too. If the name is going to get longe…
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:54 PM
7

I thought police officers were already paid through our taxes to serve and protect all citizens. Why should they get paid extra to do a job they're already obligated to do?
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:51 PM
1

I think it's wrong to assume we know the specifics of others' motives like this. I can't rule out this possibly being the motives for a number of them, but we should not commit like that.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:48 PM
2

can we unite with a modeling agency that produces badasses like this instead? I want to watch Gokinjo Monogatari and Paradise Kiss together.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:46 PM
2

we will not stand for your exclusionist bigotry
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:39 PM
3

man can't rape another man because there is no way one man can hold down another and force penetration. Reading this as being one of the arguments your opponents were making leads me to be suspicious of either your or their honesty, because this would mean ignoring prison rape, which I think is a generally accepted thing. What is the purpose of this venting? I can't see any point here unless I can actually engage these people and feel out if there's trolling.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:32 PM
3

We need some "I hate debtor's jail" and "I hate thieving mothers" stickers.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:16 PM
1

Could someone tell me why the title of this thread uses "women" (implying adult females) when the story says... Three girls, who looked no more than 14 or 15, were in their bathing suits, taking turns striking the most seductive poses possible, pushing up whatever breasts they had, while one of them snapped a photo on her phone. "These young girls showing their 'goods' have no idea how this could come back to haunt them," said Shasta Gift I don't agree with the image policing but I'm not sure wh…
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:14 PM
1

People change over time, it's worth giving it a shot every couple months or so to see if he'll converse. If we just keep shooting him down he'll just close himself off further. In an outreaching environment surely it'd be tempting to give more civil discourse a shot.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:10 AM
1

oculi: not sure oris: "Until recently it was misinterpreted as a sphincter, or circular muscle, but it is actually composed of four independent quadrants that interlace and give only an appearance of circularity."
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:09 AM
1

I thought you pretty much indicated that you "know" that most rape reports are false No, I didn't. I'm indicating that I suspect that due to the ease comparison.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:07 AM
1

I don't dispute that one could look like an ass in that situation, but it's still reality. I don't want to blame the businesses when the focus should be on the alarmist shit that allows people to get away with proofless false accusation.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:06 AM
1

Is this comedy? People aren't wearing a prom dress to football games... I mean you come to football to watch sports... Anyway I just don't think Brad Pitt is going to be at the football game, and a woman into watching football is probably not going to be as concerned about looking sexy there. Isn't that more for socializing events and not spectator stuff? Women should all wear sheep masks if they attend pro wrestling events.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:05 AM
1

It's frustrating, I tried chatting up Prof on his chatroom but he bans you if you don't agree to camchat him. I'm just not clear if it's actually him plugging the site or perhaps the other people who hang there with him.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:03 AM
1

It's not cross-dressing, clothing is inherently gender-neutral and our associating it with gender is artificial. You should simply dress in a way that allows you to carry what you need to carry. If enough women start wearing something it ceases to be controversial. Women wearing jeans isn't considered crossdressing today, but it probably would have been 50 years ago. What I want is a good reason why people of both genders cannot just carry a small bag Bombs and soda. if men's pockets are so room…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:02 AM
2

I think tampons usually come in plastic wrappers anyway, dont' they? It's not like loose tampons are just floating around in purses... right?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:37 AM
1

It's pretty clear when lumps on legs are from pockets though, so guys aren't going to assume she's fat because she's carrying pockets full of tampons. If anything, pockets provide a burqaish effect that make pants less form-hugging and reduce the inevitably visual sexual objectification that they so fear from us.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:36 AM
2

Clothing manufacturers often put fake pockets on women's clothing. When the pockets are not fake, they're very small I would like to inform you and women around the world that you possess the agency to test the existence and depth of the pockets in clothing before you purchase it.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:34 AM
4

Women's clothing are not made with functional pockets. Why? Because women carry purses. Why do women carry purses? Their clothing doesn't have functional pockets. You are not prohibited from wearing man pants. We welcome you ladies who want to wear our superior pocketed legwear.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:33 AM
1

When will someone invent breast implants which are actually a cavity for hiding concealed objects? I have an RPG where you can do this with cyborgs putting guns into their hollow thighs.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:31 AM
2

Actually I believe that stance is due to their network's participating in doxxing of redditors. There are other sites with sexist articles for whom we don't have a picture-only policy, I think.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:30 AM
1

That's ad bro, short for advertisement.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:29 AM
1

the ones that have been carried out show that false reports are a minority of all rape reports What the studies carried out "show" are irrelevant if we don't trust the study. Especially when the justice system easily results in the conviction of innocent men and reporting these as 'real' rapes. The studies probably also exclude reports that were taken to the public and not the police. It happens, but not as often as real rapes/reports. Whatever your studies conclude I'm doubtful it has any convi…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:28 AM
1

Not really, to have hope I have to believe first, not sure if I do. The errors are so odd they almost seem forced.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:21 AM
2

There being reasons she's important besides gender doesn't mean gender doesn't play into it though. I can agree so far as it means LESS in a zombie apocalypse though. They SAY everyone carries their own weight, but inevitably in a zombie apocalypse, men are still going to take more than their fraction of the burden. Doesn't Walking Dead capture that, kinda? I mean yeah, there are some great female fighters and stuff, but then there's also Carol who just does the laundry.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:19 AM
1

Were you in the room?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:17 AM
2

I was thinking jewelry, but let's get Diablo.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:17 AM
1

True, but while we have laws against showing porn to children, I'm not sure if we have laws against letting your kid play GTA or L4D. If we do, I'm sure the penalties are a lot less stiff, and there's certainly less taboo about it, so it's more engaged in.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:16 AM
1

No, but I have seen the Walking Dead and that remake they did of War of the Worlds. Does The Road even have a daughter in it? Obviously a lot of people do protect their sons too, I'm just wondering if it's by the same ratio. I think we might be encoded to protect girls more.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:15 AM
1

Yup, but that's economics sometimes. I understand the anger here but they're also the victims since they suffer indirectly when one of their employees goes through this crap.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:14 AM
6

I would be interested in someone else doing all the work while I play Farmville and then I can watch the results.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:13 AM
2

I am aware of the esophageal sphincters but I thought it clear that I meant either the external (active) or internal (passive) sphincter of the rectum.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:12 AM
0

which admins? for reddit overall?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:58 AM
-1

places like Reddit, where men can gather and speak freely on the internet and where on Reddit might that be? I see no reason to participate in all that Facebook bullshit games, dude
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:58 AM
1

I'm sure feminists have said it.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:57 AM
1

there is an understanding that men are impossible to be abused by women. There has to be a better noun to use than 'understanding'. It's as biased as when police use the verb 'inform' when talking about when witnesses TELL them things. 'a consensus' for example, would be more accurate to how feminists come to this conclusion. A consensus is not always true. Understanding implies accuracy.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:57 AM
-1

You say 'hoping to piss people off', but isn't that assuming to know what someone's motives are? We don't actually know what the motives of this person are, and it could be something else. I mean heck, he could actually be angry, and people can express anger without trying to anger others. Also, while on that line, I am angry seeing people declare how much they 'pity' others. May as well just whip out the e-cock.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:56 AM
0

Thank you for quoting the post because with whoever is deleting them (unclear if it's mods or poster) we are completely losing the context of the conversations that are happening here. It's fucking frustrating. I mean honestly if you're going to delete the guy may as well delete all the people making the effort to reply to them since we lose the context of the replies.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:54 AM
1

You got banned or use of slurs and insults you rube Is this irony?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:53 AM
1

Sillymod, what leads you to believe that this is all 1 person? Isn't it also possible (and more feasible) that there are multiple people making similar posts and engaging in similar rhetoric? I do think we would have better luck changing the behaviour by engaging politely instead of just banning. I feel like a doctor or parent or psychiatrist giving up, otherwise.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:53 AM
-1

1/3 of your posts have the word faggot/idiot/loser in it. Now contemplate why is it you take joy in going online and insulting people you don't agree with Having those words in a post does not mean you are directing them to someone you disagree with. Heck, you could be calling yourself such things. A does not lead to B. Clearly you did not describe A adequately.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:51 AM
2

What tipped you off?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:46 AM
2

If the feminists ever comment on this, it will be either a brief lipservice or else they will condemn Joel for daring to compare what was done to him to what it would be like if he did it for her, and for engaging in some kind of alleged rape threat towards her.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:41 AM
2

it's certainly a weird idea - glad they didn't go with it. Why are you glad? Zombie games SHOULD have weird ideas. Look at what Left4Dead or Lollipop Chainsaw did with zombies, it was amazing. Weird ideas help to set apart new zombie games from previous ones and movies with unique concepts. it's a game for ADULTS who gives a shit if it's misogynistic, misandrist, racist, homophobic...? 'cause realistically speaking, you know kids will be playing them anyway.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 06:04 PM
2

That would've been epic. Like that dude in Walking Dead who Rick encounters initially and meets again later.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 06:01 PM
2

I haven't played it (and probably won't get to for a long time) but I don't think it's correct to assume it has NOTHING to do with her gender. Some are more prone to protecting daughters than sons.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 06:00 PM
3

I agree that it's being made cool to act super grabby, but not the other three. "Pervy" is too vague to begin with, 'slutty' simply isn't true (they still go after males they view as higher-status and shun lower-status males. Women who share themselves with lower-status males are often shunned by both genders), and whorish, maybe in some social circles, but actually whorishness (only putting out if you get gold or whatever) I'm not sure is something I would say is considered 'cool' among either …
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:55 PM
6

Or maybe the father was buying a happy ending for his son and there is a shady aspect to OP's workplace and coworkers that he hasn't picked up on yet.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:55 PM
5

Some might agree so long as you meant gluteus maximus and not sphincter. Or some might universally disagree or agree.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:54 PM
16

We need to get some gay teen boys complaining about being touched by creepy older female therapists, pronto.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:53 PM
4

Here is a treatment which MUST be done by a male, why take a completely unnecessary and dangerous risk? What you're ignoring here is that, realistically speaking, a male therapist is more at risk of false accusations than a female one regardless of the gender of the patient. Neutrally, the gender of the therapist should not matter since either gender can molest either gender. But speaking purely in a pragmatic utiliarian way, they may simply be responding to the discrimination that exists agains…
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:51 PM
87

We know proof like this would work. The trick to it is documenting the results properly so that it can be reported to various media outlets. Someone who already has their face out there (JohnTheOther, GWW, Typhon, etc) in various YouTube rants could host a video saying something like "as a social experiment, I am going to report communities A, B and C for hate speech as a result of containing X, Y and Z comments about men" and then "it failed, so now, as step 2 of the experiment, I am going to c…
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:43 PM
0

a screenshot, not a link, because fuck them So instead of visiting the page to confirm its contents in 1 click, those of us who wish to must google a portion of the text in hopes of finding it. Seems to fuck us more than the Guardian. It would be nice if Rhiannon Lucy Cossiett (some middle name) also told women to remember that men are human beings, to check any privilege they might also have, to get tested and use condoms, and maybe be sensitive to the feelings of those you friendzone.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 05:34 PM
1

I moved from "appears" to "certainly" after I had a look at statistics. Why? Why do you seem to think that so many people who report rapes are lying? On what do you base that? I base it on lying being easier than raping, and it being easier for women to get away with lying than it is for men to get away with raping. Assuming equivalent morality of both genders, the natural assumption to make is that the misdeed that is easiest and lowest in consequence to commit will occur more frequently.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:02 AM
0

Your judgment has erred!
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:01 AM
1

I'm unclear which statement of ICTTM's implies this.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:00 AM
1

Surely it could be both
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:41 AM
0

As thanks please reply to the rest of the post =é
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:41 AM
1

Good work.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:41 AM
1

Loving sex does not make it cool to have sex with someone since you can love sex but still not consent to a particular instance of it.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:40 AM
0

You can strike a nerve by telling a black man you are worried about him raping white women, it does not make him a rapist.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:39 AM
1

for the most part, it appears that the majority of people who report rape have actually been raped. Appears being the key word. Statement with little stock put in them by those skeptical of the fairness of the poisoned-well legal system. they are certainly not the majority of all reported rapes. How did you move from appears to certainly...
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:39 AM
1

Oy, no, dont strawman me here, I just think theres a better way to go against it. If it WAS a troll, its just getting baited into the crass angry response. If its not, then it`s wrong.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:37 AM
1

True, but victim can be meant in 2 senses. A victim of a particular context of crime in relation to a particular accused, and a more general sense where it might be some other accused. I feel labelling them a victim could be taken to mean the more specific victim-of-accused.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:37 AM
0

Ah, but if people can predict that describing someone contrast to stereotypes would be -so weird it must be true- then they could choose to take that gamble.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:36 AM
1

Hm true, I can get that. When its that hard were not under any obligations to open our hearts again, just as we are not in the first place when people opt to form relationships to begin with.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:35 AM
-1

True, with crime in general, but with rape...
/r/MensRights18/09/13 06:33 AM
-1

So long as we recognize that homosexual men and transwomen (and all the other stuff in between) also also (and usually more) insecure.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:03 PM
3

I can't count the number of Facebook friend requests that I have marked "No and do not ever ask me about this person again." What if they want to become friends to apologize?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:21 PM
-2

I was singled out because I regularly went to the town to purchase comic books What comics bro?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:19 PM
-1

"DaD" > dad no 'there' after 'being' "whene" > when "how wonted" > who wanted "your" > you're "day" > dad This kid is fucking doomed. You should be doing better than this at grade 7. My mind is too disgusted for my heart to be warmed by this.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:52 PM
3

When Men Hoist the Pirate Flag This immediately made me think of Luffy and his nakama
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:50 PM
2

More accurately it implies some guy (not necessarily 'the' guy) is a rapist.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:48 PM
-1

she was probably telling the truth, she was raped but by someone else. On what do we base this declaration of probability? Not specifying a particular person to frame for rape makes me less inclined to think someone is lying, but I still don't see it as a basis to assume they're being truthful.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:33 PM
2

Whatever element in the UK is doing this, it must be something totally different than the element that writes a lot of the UK tabloids as many are just awful with jumping to conclusions labelling various inappropriate nouns to accused parties.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:31 PM
1

Could you specify to what you are saying "not necessarily" to in caimis' post?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:30 PM
2

Exactly, we should have standards for due process that apply to members of both sexes here. I fear some redditors here are prone to making the same jumps about women as feminists (and people in general) do about men and it's shitty.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:29 PM
16

and since lying is an option on the table until a crime is proven, no, alleged victims are not certainly victims of something. Saying 'victims are certainly victims' is begging the question
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:27 PM
2

Oh fuck off, sometimes people vote for reasons other than those you imagine.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:26 PM
4

While completely false accusations do happen, there is no evidence suggesting they are anywhere close to a majority of cases. Is there evidence to suggest that the majority of accusations are true? I'm inclined to think the opposite because lying is easier than raping and women are favoured over men, therefore they have more pull to exploit. It would be inappropriate to call the defendant 'the rapist' as it has been determined in a court of law that he wasn't, but the other side of that coin is …
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:11 PM
2

The majorty of people who accuse someone of rape have actually been raped source? The fact that rape charges are dismissed doesn't always mean that the accused was innocent, too Legally it does, though philosophically, no, it doesn't. You're arguing a straw man here though: nobody is saying the thing you are disputing in this thread. Or, correct me with a URL if I missed it. the terminology used in these cases will always be problematic because until there is undeniable evidence that a rape happ…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:04 PM
1

That or 'accuser' or 'plaintiff'. I do prefer single words where possible.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:03 PM
3

People seem to want to imply that saying 'alleged victim' means we're declaring smoeone liars, when all it is is being neutral. If we were calling them liars we'd say "fake victim" or something like that.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:03 PM
3

Actually no, that is not the inference of the word 'alleged'. People who twist it that way are fucking with English and we need to make a stand against them. Allegations can be true or false. All that is being done here is describing someone in the context of an allegation. It is being neutral.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:01 PM
2

I don't think it is appropriate to pile on "alleged victim" on top of that. The adjective doesn't have the weight everyone is making it out to have. The matter of fact here is that real victims are all "alleged" victims if allegations are made. That's all alleged means.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:59 PM
1

it does have the ring of "We don't believe you" to it That's all in their heads.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:58 PM
2

I am saying that I am not comfortable calling someone who was raped an "alleged victim." This does cause the issue of not being able to call false accusers "alleged victims" either, but I would rather not inflict that sort of thing on someone who was raped. You're not fucking 'inflicting' anything on them. The term "alleged" does not mean "non". If their lack of English comprehension hurts their feels them, too fucking bad.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:58 PM
3

I'm not sure that calling the alleged victim a "victim" implies that the accused is guilty. It doesn't. It just implies that the victim was actually a victim of a crime. You're right in that regard. Calling someone a victim when she accuses party A may not directly mean party A is guilty (since she might later accuse party B). Nevertheless it IS wrong, because it still assumes a crime happened, something not proven simply be reporting or pressing charges. It's also quite loaded to imply the guil…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:56 PM
2

Guys can we not call people trolls or tell them to GTFO whenever a comment pisses us off? Better to downvote, or better yet, respond to the parts you don't like and voice criticisms. It's more constructive. Namecalling and commanding don't build anything, such replies are actually more spammish in nature than these odd posts.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:55 PM
1

Please don't strawman, that's not in any way related to my comment.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:53 PM
1

The woman spoke to the boys mom and admitted sending inappropriate text messages. Inappropriate could mean anything, doesn't mean illegal. The boy showed other people the text messages. He sent the picture to a friend. I'm not certain the other people or friend would have the capacity to discern fakes from genuine articles. The police subpoenaed Linda Lusk's cell phone records and took the boy's phone for a forensic examination of the hard drive This is the main part I'm concerned with. What did…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:53 PM
1

Newspapers doing it doesn't make it right. A lot of UK newspapers engage in that with men and they are wrong for doing so. We should protest both that and when it is done to women.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:51 PM
1

Good point. One can graze intentionally... but it's also easier to do it accidentally. My mind jumps to thinking "the bullet grazed me" and usually (unless you're just trying to warn someone or show off your aim) that's not the intention and a result of accidental bad aim.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:50 PM
2

I'm willing enough to believe those are the actual police reports, but they're censored to hell (I imagine they're the public releases with names removed for privacy) so it's hard to make tails of things. I kind of wish that if the police are going to censor names they at least replace them with "Party A" or "Part B" so we know if multiple statements are being taken from the same person, or if they are all different people, and details like their relationships with the various parties in the cas…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:49 PM
1

People getting 'beat down' is wrong, just because sadists apply such vigilantism against men doesn't mean I'll applaud it being done to women. If we oppose excess presumptuous reactions to men, we'd be hypocrites if we did not also oppose it toward women.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:47 PM
1

she made it out to sound as if he coerced her into it Agreed, though I was still left wondering WHAT actually occurred. That would mean they were both for it Being coerced into something doesn't mean you are for it. If we're to take the stance she co-operated without something serious enough to call coercion then we should not use the word coerced.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:45 PM
1

If this means that the justice system has classified her as one, then okay. I would like a term to distinguish that concept from people who have actually committed sex offenses though, seeing as how we have some innocents classified as SOs who did not actually break laws (like when divorcing moms falsely accuse dads of it to help their custody battle)
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:44 PM
1

Thanks, I had already read those documents though. They contain a (rather ugly censored) smattering of interviews, including one person interviewed who did not claim there was anything. A bunch of people claiming they saw erotic pix on a phone shouldn't be enough to put others way, there should be actual tech evidence. Otherwise all you'd need is a couple girls saying a man sent them cock pics (regardless of whether or not there are any) to outnumber his testimony that they didn't. Establishing …
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:43 PM
1

Do we have a copy of her statements? We're left with vague third-party representations of what happened, I need to know the context here, the exact phrasing of what she pled to.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:41 PM
2

It needs to say more to convince me that sex with a minor actually occurred. I'm not left with that impression.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:41 PM
1

I don't find it appropriate to use 'the victim' until a guilty verdict results. There simply being charges is wrong. Heck, with the biased courts and innocents going to jail, I am hesitant to use the term 'victim' even when there is a guilty verdict. 'Plaintiff' or whatever is better.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:39 PM
1

The article summarizes him as 'bragging', which SOUNDS like happy, but we should probably get clearer evidence of what he was saying to friends. It is possible the reporter may have misrepresented a male conversing with other males about sex as 'bragging'. We get painted as braggarts so even if he was crying about it or talking about it all bitterly, a sexist reporter with misandric tendencies could have read "talked to friends" and just inserted "bragging" without correctly interpreting the sit…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:29 PM
0

Why do you call her a predator? Still awaiting evidence she did anything.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:28 PM
2

Clarify?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:28 PM
1

The problem here is I'm not clear if the woman 'admitted to groping' in her plea bargain.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:27 PM
2

why aren't there MRAs picketing the woman's house? Well, I'm personally not doing it because I'm not certain she's guilty. the sentence was lighter because the girl "acted older than her chronological age", was "as much in control in the situation" as her rapist, and was a troubled youth--polite speak for calling her a slut Please use the judge's own words and don't fucking paraphrase it like that. People in here are getting downvoted to high heaven for suggesting that the boy in the original ca…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:27 PM
2

bonus points for calling her a slut Could you clarify what you mean by this? At first I thought you were saying the judge said this, but I am led to think you are expecting replies like this from us? saying it doesn't count as real rape because it was consensual (although the victim later committed suicide) Consensual sex ISN'T rape. If minors have consensual sex with a minor, I prefer California's term for it (the one Polanski pled to) : "Unlawful Sex With A Minor" (USWAM). It's more accurate a…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:22 PM
0

What photos? I haven't seen any. I've only seen an interview clamiing they exist. Admissions of guilt can be coerced, plea bargains are often agreed to by innocents when they think they're getting screwed.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:16 PM
0

How is this fucking relevant? There are cases when it's okay for a spouse to leave their spouse, regardless of the gender of either party. If, for example, she was alienated from her husband as a result of the scandal, especially if he was assuming things about what happened that were untrue (a possibility) it's fine to leave. It's also fine for adults to like other adults who are younger. Would we be shaming this person to the same degree if it was a husband who left his wife after being accuse…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:15 PM
1

what did the boy do wrong? Possibly lying about oral sex or receiving sex pics, if neither happened. Still waiting for evidence to confirm such claims. what could he have ever done to justify her putting her hands (or mouth in this case) on a minor? Well, since you're asking hypothetically, he could have threatened her at gunpoint to do it, but that doesn't seem likely. I don't think this is as much about justifying her behaviour, rather questioning if what was alleged actually occurred. I'm sur…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:13 PM
2

They can't let convicted sex offenders go to a school. Sure they can, why not? Considering that you'd be in a crowd of parents and the only 'kids' (who are probably 18 or almost there) attending would be on stage, there's not exactly much danger. she will have consequences the rest of her life because she has proven she can't be trusted around minors Where is the proof? Admitting to a plea bargain? Police have railroaded men, they can do so to women also.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:10 PM
1

Sleight of hand? There's a use for that
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:09 PM
1

It's worth noting that admitting to genital grazing doesn't necessarily mean skin on skin contact. For all we know she could've been talking about accidentally kneeing him in the groin while he wore pants.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:07 PM
1

still waiting on evidence that she actually sent him said photos. Did police find tech records of this or not? Why is it likely that if a woman sends you nudes that she gave you oral? Fucking assumptions.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:07 PM
1

What about her screams psychosis to you?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:06 PM
1

I don't follow how this comment relates to what you replied to. Who is the promiscuous slut and who is having sex with underage girls in this case?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:06 PM
2

Nobody is arguing that it's legal, this is more a commentary on the morality of it.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:05 PM
1

Oh please, let's not pretend it's some fucking universal evil that no matter what he must have hated. There's a couple older teachers I would have accepted BJs from as a high school teen. Why is the verb 'brag' being used about how he spoke to his friends about it?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:04 PM
0

By your choice of terms are you implying that she's a female pedophile? No evidence of that.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:03 PM
2

That comment only supplied a scan of documents, not actual proof.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:02 PM
1

She can also be for female minors who are generally not called women. Of course it's not due to being an ADULT female that she's getting off (girl children would also) so 'she's female' would suffice'. Part of the problem is to make it a sentence you do pretty much need both pronoun and adjective, even if both are feminine. You can't really just answer "she is" or "a female".
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:02 PM
1

This has no information on whether she sent him photos or texts. So... shouldn't we think she's innocent of this until someone provides an article with evidence of it?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:00 PM
1

When you say you do not think she is innnocent, does this mean you think she is guilty? Or just neutral/undecided?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:00 PM
1

People keep claiming that yet we're still awaiting actual evidence besides heresay that it occurred. Why is everyone downvoting semantical for asking reasonable questions? We don't give women a free pass or white knight when they're guilty, but like men, they do deserve benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence until proof of guilt.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:59 PM
1

Her spit on his junk as he's a teenager and may not have washed. You seem to have missed the part about where he alleges this happened while he was dating the daughter, yet did not begin bragging until after he and the daughter broke up. I doubt saliva would last THAT long.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:58 PM
2

Disgusting shit guys? We need more details on what happened. I don't think it appropriate to insult her until we know more and this article tells us too little.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:57 PM
-1

Ignoring whether or not people consider it acceptable, isn't it somewhat wrong to speak as if a child was victimized until we've gotten evidence that it occurred?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:55 PM
4

Regarding the first picture, is there any evidence to consider besides the boy's claim that she sent him pictures? For example, did he have a copy of the pictures for the police to look at? If not, how do we know he wasn't lying? Even if he did manage to get pictures, considering he was her daughter's boyfriend, he could have stolen them from her room, since he probably had access to the home when the parents were not home.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:55 PM
-1

"I don’t think he’s ever accepted responsibility for what he did." This takes the cake. Astonishing lack of acceptance of her crime. Not necessarily. If she only pled to touching (which by 'grazing' sounds like she is saying was accidental) then she's implying he lied about getting oral sex, which IS something he should accept responsibility for. If you punch a guy in the face it doesn't make it right for him to say you chopped off his arm.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:50 PM
2

boy was fourteen. That makes her an Ephebophile, not a pedophile. Not even that, necessarily. A woman being with a teen boy doesn't necessarily mean she prefers teen boys. Kind of like how you can fuck men and still prefer women. Also still not clear if anything actually happened, no evidence presented in this article.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:49 PM
1

Gender ambiguous title: Convicted Pedophile banned from own childs graduation. Gender ambiguous and inaccurate, there is no mention of this woman being diagnosed with pedophilia.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:48 PM
-5

Bitch, you sexually advanced on a child. Evidence? Taking a plea bargain you're offered when the chips are stacked doesn't mean you actually did it. If a guy did that to a boy, he'd be killed in prison over it... If he did it to a girl, he'd possibly not even even make it out of jail. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two consequences you're describing here. I'm also not sure why it is relevant whether or not someone is murdered in a prison. Being murdered in a prison is not justic…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:47 PM
2

Why are we assuming 'it was mutual' was the defense? Sounds more like she was disputing it happened at all. Also, he can consent, it's just not legally recognized as an excuse, because he lacks recognized agency.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:45 PM
2

I'm still concerned about 'touching' versus 'touching intentionally'. Touching can also be accidental, and even be the fault of the 'victim' in some cases. For example that scene in "Just Go With It" where some kid headbutts Adam Sandler in the nuts and then cries to his mom about him touching him with his privates.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:44 PM
1

The word 'nude' doesn't show up when I search the text of this NY Daily News article. Could you tell us where you get this?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:39 PM
0

reads to me like the victim claimed oral sex, there wasn't any evidence, but she agreed to a plea bargain where she'd plead guilty to touching his genitals through his pants. This, except 'grazed' which makes it sound accidental rather than 'touch' which sounds purposeful. I'm not sure what she's being punished for here, or how her admission relates to a crime.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:37 PM
2

Oral sex on a 14 year old is rape. This is also something he bragged to friends about, yet I am left to wonder if it actually happened. The bragging occurred after he broke up with the girl so he might just be lying. I'm not clear on what the woman admitted to. Can anyone find a copy of the plea bargain?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:37 PM
0

He's not a bloody rape victim. The charge was molestation and from what I'm read is based on her admitting to accidental bumping into his crotch once or some shit.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:35 PM
2

her daughter’s ex-boyfriend, Bubba Frank, began telling friends that the woman gave him oral sex. Lusk initially denied the allegations, but later admitted to police that her hand grazed the boy’s genitals during a visit at her house. Frank, then 14, never went to police Is THIS all it was based on? Someone explain to me why this woman is being punished at all? Genital grazing could happen by accident. It doesn't sound like she admitted to oral sex. What was she even convicted of doing? What did…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:35 PM
1

I don't know where you're getting that and I don't see the viewpoint being supported. Being free to like or dislike whatever your instincts tell you is not white identity.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:15 PM
1

My focus was more on the 'marriage' aspect of the suffix gamy. There are certainly non-money rewards that people can marry for, such as social status, being provided a home, making friends jealous, etc. Regardless, the central part of it is doing it for attaining direct or indirect material privileges.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:15 PM
8

Their tone of voice How might these gentlemen have improved their tone so as to lead you to not assume their intent was to frighten? how they approached them What about their approach could have been altered? The women had no where to go I'm not sure what you mean by this. They had a clear expanse of sidewalk ahead of them, and while the men did run ahead to get face shots with the cameras, they were not barring the women's path. they were trying not to act scared Possibly, possibly not. I don't…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:57 PM
1

At one point, she turned to walk away, but Johnson grabbed her arm She turned around, removed his hand from her arm and pushed Johnson with both hands in the back I dunno she might still try spinning that into some kind of self defense bullshit. I strongly think she's guilty but to be fare, innocent men have been coerced into falsely confessing to crimes, even been convicted guilty as a result, so even a theoretical "admission" is not proof. Though I'm doubtful women get coerced into false confe…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:45 PM
1

"if u don't hear from me at all again tonight, something happened" I dunno, sounds potentially premeditated to me. I'm not clear why we even make the distinction between murder 1 and 2. Do I give a shit if someone kills another due to rage or due to cold malice? Same end result, same danger to others. Hell, I'd rather see Murder 1 get a lighter penalty than Murder 2. At least cold-blooded murderers generally do so for some kind of reason and not blind anger lashing out at others.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:43 PM
1

I'm not sure. I don't know how they'd get that information unless she confessed to where she pushed him. What confused me is it said prior to pushing him, she was leaving and he was holding her hand. Normally when you hold someone's hand you are turned towards them, not away.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:40 PM
1

I don't think I'd have much political success campaigning against people who have families, seems to be a powerful lobby group.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:39 PM
1

Probably, yup. I wouldn't say undetected, they'd probably still do an investigation of sorts.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:38 PM
1

Feminism does not have to be more in favour of MGM than the mean population to be in favour of it. If 55% were in favour compared to 60% overall and they were less likely to be, they're still majority in favour. Considering their massive leaps into fighting FGM while ignoring MGM and condemning efforts to include it in anti-CGM efforts it's very clear they're for it.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:38 PM
1

20k in the foreskin, 8k in the glans clitoris. Mind you, the glans clitoris is more densely enervated. Meaning that it's less than half the size, I take it?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:36 PM
1

I'm unclear what her being white has to do with flight risk.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:35 PM
2

I still don't like to call it 'stupid', someone need not lack intelligence to be unaware of the level of ruthelssness the internet has. Perhaps ill-informed. Rather than outlawing nudes these people should set up awareness campaigns to explain what can happen to data.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:35 PM
1

No, assuming I ever do get a kid, and have cause to believe they were abused or molested, I believe I would still only desire a life sentence instead of a death penalty. I don't believe murdering people solves anything, and I don't believe it's an acceptable thing to allow.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:34 PM
1

There is no reasoning to guessing at other's meanings that I know of. If the non-boy group meant by 'all' is girls, why not just say that?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:33 PM
2

Links to real stuff is irrelevant, they were still charged for fictional stuff, which is wrong. That's like saying "oh, he murdered a guy, so let's tack on a charge for forgetting to turn off his air conditioning during winter"
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:32 PM
2

In future could you clarify which part you're calling bullshit if someone has several sentences with a variety of statements? It confuses those of us who lack insight into others' thinking patterns. This isn't merely a matter of being attacked for being white, you're twisting it that way. It's more an issue of people (usually men) being targetted for having racial preferences. This happens to both black and white men, and to both for liking either white, black, asian, etc. women more than others…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:31 PM
2

Luq please don't lie. I completely think it's fine to call people racist for not being equally attracted sexually to all races. Don't put words in my mouth, that's strawmanning. Also, we're not talking about sexual attraction to poor men, we're talking about hypergamy, which is MARRYING richer men to get at their wealth. If women are just dating wealthy men, but not after their money, get married with a prenub, don't take handouts, etc. then that's a whole other ballgame.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:29 PM
1

Why would you even need a nail? Just lift the untaped portion up and peel. If all 4 sides are taped (kinda rare) you could probably still lift whatever is underneath it for getting it started.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:27 PM
9

Where do you draw the conclusion that the intent was to intimidate or scare? They were trying to understand why the women were taking down the posters. Why do you call it a "chase"? Both parties were walking, not running. They followed the women because the women took their property. Next up: we chastise the police for having the gall to pursuie female car thieves, the bunch of misogynists.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:22 PM
6

because, you know, you definitely need box cutters to remove tape holding up a piece of paper to a wall, you totally can't just pull those down without tools
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:15 PM
1

This isn't about white rights. Yes, the guy in the comic was recolored from dark to pale, but black men can also be attracted to white women instead of black women. Or vice versa, we could easily switch the races that the white guy prefers. This is about it being okay for men to like who they like.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:15 AM
3

There is no "the" definition of racism, you should not present A definition using an inappropriate definite article. What you present is a narrow range of racism definitions, it also has a broader usage, based on the etymology instead of random dictionary presentations of popular usage.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:13 AM
0

You don't necessarily know that he is being downvoted for including a definition, downvoting for that assumption.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:12 AM
1

Technically he wasn't telling you what you can like, just disagreeing with you in thinking they aren't cool. Of course I downvoted him because I disagree with his aesthetic opinions. I mean c'mon we have Perry, Question, Renee, Rorschach, Tracy, and probably a bunch of other badasses.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:11 AM
1

then decry the "hypergamous nature" of women. LadyLuq unless you can point out some particular people who are both upvoting (or speaking approvingly) of this comic here, who are also decrying hypergamy, I'm not sure you have a solid point here, and are just assuming them to be the same individuals. Also even if you did, I don't think the examples are similar enough to be inherently hypocritical. Hypergamy (marrying up) refers to marrying someone of greater wealth or status, it's in a way subtle …
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:06 AM
5

A lot of of it is relevant, sure, but I didn't get a lot of it. For example: Why does liking ponies make you a mangina? As there can be manginas who hate ponies, and pony-lovers who are not manginas, why is the pony-loving relevant? Why fat-shame? Why brony-shame? Why does "fedora-clad redditor" (whom one would assume is a men's rights parody) claim men can't be raped?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:48 AM
1

Death penalties are a horrible idea regardless of the crime. The justice system fucks up, we need those we punish kept alive as a tool to uncover potential fuckups.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:38 AM
-6

How exactly is punishing this particular individual justice for all children who are abused? How is it justice, say, for a kid beaten to death with a baseball bat?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:37 AM
-3

Criticism should be more thorough than that. I don't think we should totally throw out Gieger's idea.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:36 AM
1

there's alternatives such as legal Japanese manga that portrays that stuff Not as much of an alternative as you'd think, ask Dwight Whorley of Virginia, Christopher Handley of Iowa, Steven Kutzner of Idaho or Joseph Audette of Maine
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:36 AM
4

14 years is pretty reasonable too No it isn't, you can get less than that for actually assaulting people. For example: http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/2011/11/09/belleville-woman-who-attacked-child-with-plastic-bat-avoids-jails-time/a3zj1zf/?__xsl=/print.xsl More focus should be put on punishing women for actual violence instead of handing out ridiculous decade-long sentences for illegal data.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:32 AM
1

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exploit#Verb Not getting much meaning from this. Alternatives seem to be 'use' or 'take advantage'. I wish better vocabulary existed to describe negative things because none of these three actually sound bad when used in other contexts. Something meaning bad should always sound bad. As far this being 'justice' for little boys, it's worth noting that if she was only trading, this probably isn't something they would consider much justice. Was she actually making the …
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:28 AM
9

Sending nude photos of yourself to someone you love is stupid? In the world of nasty breakups, getting a verbal agreement prior to sharing the photos that the receiver not share them with anyone else would be good though, if it helps in prosecuting those who break their word.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:54 AM
0

I don't suppose anyone has a link to where I can view the images in question of Holli Thometz aka Holly Jacobs? For science. This shouldn't be called rape, but I suppose it would be okay to have uniform laws controlling the use of images of people. I don't think there should be any special treatment if a picture if of a woman or if a picture is nude, though. Furthermore, I don't see this as a major concern, because nude photos being used without your consent is nowhere near as potentially damagi…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:50 AM
3

Opression Olympics aside, the reply was bad because he says they are "totally" different, when they are clearly not totally different. Totally different things have no similarities, and MGM and FGM (in all forms) always have similarities. If he were to say they were not identical, he would be arguing a straw man because nobody alleged they were. We're simply pointing out they're both non-consented to forms of mutilation that decrease sexual pleasure.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:00 PM
1

Do you have any evidence that feminists are more likely to support circumcision than the population at large? Irrelevant, they're the ones who adamently calling for a focus on the removal of FGM yet pretending to care about gender equality. If other groups share their apathy and bias, I don't care as much, because at least other groups aren't hypocrites about their bias.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 10:58 PM
2

Just to clarify, are we talking about the glans here? We should always, in recognition of the deeper subdermal roots, say glans of clitoris just like we do glans of penis. Clitorises have a shaft just like a penis (actually it has 2 shafts, surrounding the vagina) and those aren't cut out, so we should just say the glans.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 10:57 PM
1

Wait, the foreskin is more enervated? That does lead me to think it'd be twice as bad though.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 10:56 PM
1

I don't agree with people saying the glans/clitoris or foreskin/hood are identical (I think men's are more important because they are bigger, but I think simply in terms of size) but I don't at all see how you compare the male prepuce (foreskin) to the clitoris or the labia, it's a very confusing analogy.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 10:55 PM
25

So he let a known murderer walk free? Suspected, not known. To be fair she hasn't had her trial yet so we shouldn't speak as if it's reasonably concluded. Although the evidence does look... Cody Lee Johnson, 25, face-first off a cliff to his death in the national park on July 7 Graham initially told investigators that Johnson left their house late on July 7 with unidentified friends in a dark-colored car with Washington state license plates. Johnson was reported missing on July 8 when he failed …
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:29 PM
110

did not pose a flight risk because of her strong community ties and did not appear to be a danger to others. Right because you totally don't pose a flight risk if you're being charged for murder in a state that still has the death penalty. Not that women frequently get that or anything. I don't like the idea that people with 'community ties' don't have to spend time in jail, while people who lack friends or family get imprisoned. What is the purpose of that bias? If anything, people with communi…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:24 PM
1

I have this deep-seated anger that people are paid to make idiotic clutterish edits like that one.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:10 PM
1

I can concur with you that the law does not properly recognize all forms of violence and self defense. Often when we speak in such term's it's about an idealistic 'this is how future laws should work' way.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:10 PM
1

Whether or not self defense is moral (and what degree of self defense is moral) would be another issue. It clearly is though, because they are, in co-operation with the government, depriving someone unfairly of their assets. It's not realistic to expect someone to take on the entire government to stop this injustice, so to those who take the realistic path, why should I villify them? Women can vote, if they don't like the pressure CS laws put on men, and how it makes their bodies a tool to attac…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:09 PM
-1

The fursona is strong with these three. How long to wait until there's rule 34 of this trio? No offense or sexual objectification meant ladies :)
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:26 PM
2

The fourth and seventh questions confused me ... "A manager fails to promote a female (male) employee for not granting sexual favors" "A supervisor gives a female (male) subordinate a nice gift on her (his birthday)" What is the context of the parenthesis? I'm not sure what it's saying. If it's meant to cover both cases then why specify gender at all. Why not simply "fails to promote en employee" or "gives a subordinate a nice gift" and "their birthday" ? The last question on the list appears to…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:23 PM
0

Is a mugger a 'victim' if they get their nose busted trying to lift someone's wallet? I'm not disputing that he drugged her (I find 'poison' to be a dramatic embellishment), I just see it as fine, because it was done fighting to protect his property. People CAN take the law into their own hands, this man did. Should he? Well, that's a philosophical argument I guess. Should people act in defense of their rights when the government doesn't?
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:20 PM
1

Sexist against who? The foetus is not a person. Sexism isn't solely something pertaining to people, it pertains to sex. If I'd rather have a male dog instead of a female dog, that's sexism to me. You might as well say calling a ship fat is sexist if the ship has a female name. Ship's don't literally have genders. Cells do. Fewer women means more "demand" for women which means they are more "valued". Similarly the men are valued less. In regard to the China situation, men are valued more and that…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:19 PM
1

Assault has defenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#Prevention_of_crime If it's to prevent crime or to defend one's property, it's just.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:17 PM
1

I believe it is, there are laws on the books on this being okay in other circumstances. You're allowed to judo flip a mugger.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:16 PM
1

he should have assaulted the state not the mother The state is unable to file for support without the father's identity, which mothers provide. If mothers don't want to be targetted I suggest they organize and protest their own privilege and get the laws changed so that their existence is not an active threat to a man's livelihood.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:15 PM
1

Why should society have to support a child and it's mother, if it has no say in the initial choice of bringing that child into the world? Mostly because it's a good idea to give them a good upbringing or else they're more apt to become non-productive criminals. But for unleashing that burden on society without society's consent, neutering should occur to prevent any future burdens.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:14 PM
1

No, the sentencing should be less. Actually as things currently are where babies are potential weapons to be used against men, I am unsure why we should punish any assault against pregnant women. Perhaps we could start punishing that again when men are no longer financially liable as the result of the ongoing wellbeing of a woman's pregnancy. Seeing as how any assault on a pregnant woman could be a form of self-defense (both of one's self or one's allies) it's hard to view it as malicious.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:13 PM
2

I should make a new thread here on how we should jury-nullify any cases of violence against pregnant women until men are no longer auto-opted-in for child support.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:11 PM
1

I don't consider something a person just because it has human DNA or a unique combination of it. Something needs sentience, it's not demonstrably adequate here.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:10 PM
1

He only consented to sex for recreation. She had sex for procreation. So she had a form of sex with him that he did not consent to. That's rape, just like if your husband's twin fucks you after confusing you he's your husband. One night stand or 8 month relationship is an irrelevant issue, you can be a victim of rape in long term relationships.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:08 PM
1

It's not a matter of force being applied to sex, but rather because she had sex with him that he did not consent to have with her. She did so under false circumstances. Same situation as http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531942
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:07 PM
1

Pills are a form of drug, and it is fine to trick people into taking them without their permission if they are attacking you. Normal morality about not hurting others does not apply when they are violating your rights and taking steps to harm you first. It's not 'legally' okay, but that's just because the law hasn't caught up with proper morality. Morally, it's fine.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:06 PM
2

That also.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:02 PM
1

Slightly separate, not ridiculously so. The fundamentals are the same.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:01 PM
1

Yes. As we have been educated by the feminists, rape is a form of violence, and it is rape if she has sex with a guy under circumstances he has not consented to. Just as if a woman consents to fuck Twin B by him tricking her into thinking he is her husband, Twin A, this woman has tricked a man into having sex he thought was not for procreation, when it was, since that's what she chose.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:01 PM
2

I'm really confused why 'cruelty' is considered something less bad than statutory rape.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 05:59 PM
-1

He should be punished Why should we punish the victim?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:01 PM
-5

The logical charges would be reckless endangerment, assault, and battery. The endangerment didn't seem reckless to me. Generally giving someone an abortion drug is safer for them than inducing a miscarriage through physical trauma, no? The assault (I am afraid I don't know the distinction between that and battery) should not be criminal because he did so in self defense. he attacked her body (with poison), destroyed a part of her body (the fetus), and acted without concern for her well-being and…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:01 PM
2

Well technically it is sexist to abort a fetus on the basis of its sex, no denying that. I think GWW mentioned the china issue in one of her vids and brought up how it was sexist laws against men (they are obligated to support their parents, women aren't) that create this pressure to begin with.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:58 PM
-5

dude's a shithead and deserves some form of prosecution Dude's a hero, did nothing wrong, shouldn't be prosecuted. I hope anyone on his jury nullifies the charges with a 'not guilty' result. Ignore all deliberation, he was defending himself.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:57 PM
2

I do believe things will eventually change. Otherwise, what is the point of being in a men's rights movement? Possibility is enough, we don't have to speak as if it's certain. That can make us sound deluded and drive away realists. Entertaining the possibility of failure in our vocabulary is fine, is shows we are grounded in reality.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:57 PM
-3

The foetus is inside her body, and therefore I think she has the right to decide. Why? The result of her decision affects the whole nation by creating a new citizen. We should have a say if we don't want her to carry it to term, and be able to forcibly abort it if her behaviour is reckless. Kind of like how you can jail people for drunk driving or practicing medicine without a license. no one else has the right to interfere with her body not YET. We can change that. at the very least this is gri…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:55 PM
-3

What the guy did was wrong Nope, self-defense. If you try robbing a person, you risk them defending themselves. Forcing someone to undergo and abortion is very different than choosing to have an abortion yourself. Irrelevant, not aborting something that isn't yours (the man's genes) and putting yourself in a position to create a financial burden for him is wrong, and anyone who does that deserves whatever they get. Even if they die in the process.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:54 PM
0

Why should they be charged with murder? Human fetuses are not people.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:52 PM
-7

It justifies it completely. If someone violates your rights, it's fine to violate theirs in self defense. She put her own life in danger by attacking and raping this man.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:52 PM
-4

Why not? I realize it sucks because of the stress the trial process puts on these heroic men, but we need an opportunity to jury-nullify.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:51 PM
-5

I don't like how the Spearhead author says it's sleazy. Self defense isn't sleazy. Is it sleazy to beat the shit out of someone trying to steal your wallet in an alley?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:50 PM
1

Tumblrbot is cheating on 4chanbot?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:44 PM
2

This is the flipside of 'damn feminist can't get laid'. Exactly the same bullshit. That's why I like it when we can be enthusiastic at stamping out that kind of reasoning. As a thank you, perhaps feminists could also self-police in removing that kind of person from their midst, or confronting them. I find so often that feminists love to exploit the numbers game that they'll take anybody, embrace any kind of attack, against a critic, and are unscrupulous in that degree. I think the irony here by …
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:44 PM
3

Would you happen to know more information about the 5th picture? Like where it was published?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:36 PM
33

Flip the situation, imagine if it was "despite his girlfriend Remee Lee's reluctance, John Andrew Welden planned to have the baby. When she was not agreeable, he chained her to a bed until she successfully delivered the child" People would be outraged. But apparently the reverse, forcing a guy to be a dad without his consent, is fine, and she's a victim if he rightly fights back against it.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:19 PM
6

I think part of the problem is ignorance about it. Was reading this subreddit and AVFM for months before I came across the concept of nullification.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:18 PM
11

You can't call that murder for the abortion unless you change the law saying all abortions are murder. This is a broader issue than abortion pills though. If someone murders a pregnant woman they're tried for a double-homicide. We should start there because that's clearly what people are worried about it snowballing into, and I have no problem at all with that being tried as a single homicide, it's not as if they'd get off the hook. In the case of a pregnant woman being attacked and miscarrying,…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:17 PM
1

It is demeaning to boys, of any age, to presume they can only see a woman as a sexual object once they have seen her in a state of undress obviously many men don’t (unless of course your name is Robin Thicke). What a load of shit, how is it at all right to state that Robin can 'only' see women as sex objects simply because he had some topless ones in a music video? We should come to the defense of this guy.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:14 PM
1

Your alliteration is impressive but your constant resorting to evasive insults and ad hominem attacks bore me. I suggest that if you're not going to engage anyone you not reply at all.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:11 PM
1

True, though in this context I moreso than fondness/crush meant 'envision fucking'. This may not necessarily mean that someone is envisioning 'all' the consequences and context (this is something I think even adults often fail to do, if it's even possible to predict utterly ALL consequence) of course.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:10 PM
1

We get a lot of threads here =/
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:09 PM
2

Being self-serving doesn't mean you can't be in a position of public trust. People can hold self-interest and still be professional in their jobs.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:06 PM
1

He-man doesn't hate women! Adam loves the Sorceress, Teela and Adora!
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:06 PM
-1

She could have just had her eggs frozen. She can always adopt. Procreation should be a privilege not a right.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:55 AM
1

I'd like it if the mods would ban this damn bot, it's spamming any time the term gets repeated and falsely representing it as a fallacy.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:54 AM
0

It's not a lawyer's fault that the laws are what they are. I'm not going to blame a good greedy occupationalist who simply aid in showing us how our system is broken. If we're to blame anything it should be the politicians and judges who let stuff pass and keep it in there.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:52 AM
1

What would saying this accomplish? It would probably only harm his case by aiding those who want to paint him as the bad guy.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:51 AM
2

Check the other discussions page on the /r/mensrights thread. It was there, now it's gone. Link?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:42 AM
16

So we should just assume that it probably was almost certainly a valid form of censorship because nobody would possibly abuse the deletion power?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:42 AM
2

GirlWritesWhat does not mention that such provisioning for both children and mothers is in the best interests of males as well, if said male wishes to propagate his genes over multiple generations. I'm pretty sure GWW did actually touch on this at some point. It's also untrue because providing for them doesn't help spread your genes if you're cuckolded, and not all men are interested in gene-passing yet are still held to a system that expects them to look out for women promised to other men and …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:40 AM
2

She added that Hale had ruined her son's life and he will never be a normal teenager. Anyone else bothered by this? I personally think the mother is doing more to ruin this boy's life than the woman who fucked him is. How the fuck does it help him move on and make something of himself if his mother is telling him his life is over? Not being a normal teenager doesn't mean your life is ruined. They were right to take him away from that toxic shit. The mother .. said the offending had a negative im…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:24 AM
1

Little to no social financial or mental harm cam come to someone if there was zero follow through with the legal system in the case of a false rape accusation. What a load. People have been murdered over it. It would make no sense to prosecute and imprison someone who wouldn't even cross the line to lie to cops. It makes complete sense to me. People can be jailed for defamation whether or not they say so to the police or not. It's actually potentially worse to say stuff to the public because the…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:21 AM
1

Half sarcasm. I think everyone engages in a bit of double standard where we partly look at ourselves as objects and partly as agents. Effects and causers.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:00 AM
1

I think the idea is that the mother neglected her son by not properly educating him about sex which led to him being vulnerable to that situation.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:59 AM
1

Depends on what you mean by 'worth its salt'. I imagine many popular "respectable" news agencies wouldn't print that, but more to be PC than to be accurate. Why should we not print the claims of the people involved with the case? Just treat them as if they lack a voice?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:57 AM
0

Just because it's uncommon doesn't make it impossible. I wouldn't know what that's like, but I was never an attractive boy. If you're popular amongst your own age group and getting Jacob-type reactions from cougars you might build up the courage to pursue what you want. Or are we pretending we never liked adult women as teens? =/
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:56 AM
3

I imagine this is just the boy paraphrasing "the relationship started", attention may not be paid particularly to the meaning of pronouns.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:54 AM
2

Even if someone isn't out to rape you, slapping is a form of assault though, so I don't want to think we should just laugh at people for having a problem with it and wanting it stopped.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:52 AM
5

That's just it though: why are we conditioned to laugh it off but women aren't?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:05 AM
1

Not really. Picture a black protester wearing one of those suits, it might seem a bit odd.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:05 AM
7

All it is is fore skin Which means what, exactly? We think it's rather important. nothing wrong with taking it off Except that y'know, there is something wrong with it, because you're mutilating a child without permission and removing an erogenous zone. a ball is pretty drastic, removing foreskin is not. Both are drastic in different ways. its extra skin No, it isn't. We're not talking about rolls of fat here, we're talking about skin with nerve endings that protects the penis and makes sex more…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:54 AM
1

Perhaps, but I think it would be worth dipping a couple extra bucks for at least one blacksuit to not alienate our darker-toned friends of higher melanin.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:52 AM
2

that he was living with her in a position of authority and the methods of getting her to submit to him were about half Position of authority's still pretty generic for a comparison though. Humbert was a step-dad, way more power there than being a dance teacher and mother's friend. batman, chill out. I can't, they retconned my origins
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:50 AM
2

Damn, well let's not stop there, 1 in 2 ftw.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:48 AM
2

Telling the police the truth after spreading lies about a person shouldn't clear you of the risk you've put them at. read the first sentence and it's just more extremist sexist denial bullshit. I'm confused what you think is sexist about this, and what you think I am denying, and what you think is extreme.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:44 AM
1

Yeah basically that's what I mean, I'm not experienced in looking at game reviews (tend to avoid them due to fear of spoilers, would rather play first) so I didn't have much to build the comparisons from. The only merit to FF is she spends so little time on most of the examples she uses that they're forgettable and I think would only be a spoiler if you had already started playing enough to get attached to remembering who a character is for info about their fate to sink in.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:44 AM
1

Except you CAN compare them. It's an odd expression, 'can't compare'. We compare'm all the time. We might say that we view there being more differences between humans and species X than between species X and species Y, though.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:37 AM
1

We can't be totally different if there are still similarities :)
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:37 AM
1

Awesome, so info at http://marvel.wikia.com/Punisher_Vol_2_45 then, a comic from 1991 called "One Way Fare". Not that much information, if you happen to know the names of any characters in the volume (perhaps the name of the serial killer woman?) it would be epic if you could include them.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:32 AM
2

I dunno, I think an MRA can disagree with the necessity of being alpha/macho/stoic while still liking those attributes (or aspects of them).
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:30 AM
1

Course not, I blame both my genes AND my upbringing. Anything to avoid self-blame.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:29 AM
2

The suits obviously represent red blood on pure white baby skin, but there are also black babies who get circumcised.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:28 AM
10

She was put in jail in 2003 for 5 years, so I expect some form of law did.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:27 AM
2

So when you say 'it reads like', the likeness is due to the matter of... co-boarding and age difference? It doesn't sound like enough similarities to warrant the analogy.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:26 AM
5

Nicccccce
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:24 AM
2

He has a valid point, we don't know how reliably the sample reflects the population trends, it depends on how they were polled, where people were polled, etc.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:24 AM
4

A major issue would be that even if we do consider ass-slaps as sexual violence, women are more prone to report these and get support in filing charges for them than men would.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:22 AM
2

The problem with dishonesty is while its numbers can draw attention, they don't build credibility once discredited. Feminists are entrenched enough that they don't have to worry about losing credibility when we discredit their numbers. They're more masterful spin doctors with no scruples about using every technique in the book to evade reality.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:22 AM
3

Psh, I'm sure if we used THEIR logic we could get a 1 in 3.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:21 AM
4

I don't have a problem with self-serving people. It's fine to be selfish. But it's wrong not to do your job. Police officer's duty is to serve others in addition to themselves and that was neglected here.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:20 AM
12

Hendrika Margaret Shaskey, was jailed for five years in 2003 for the abuse. But she would have faced a longer sentence had she been a man having sex with a girl Glad to see Simon Collins is reporting on bullshit double standards like this.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:18 AM
0

Women, if they are even allowed to participate, are barely allowed to do so. Heaven forbid a woman be allowed to engage in oral suction techniques on a baby instead of a man, that would just be gross.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:17 AM
7

You're arguing a strawman kansas. He never said 'the whole penis', he said ONE of David's balls. David would still have his other ball and his penis would be intact.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:15 AM
0

waiting to perform a circumcision makes the procedure much riskier and much more likely to carry damaging side effects Assuming that's true, they'd be manageable, and are circumstantial to actually getting one, which some may not opt to. I really don't see how this is a men's rights issue We want to share the right to avoid mutilated genitals, as we have extended to women. I'm sure plenty of people here are in favor of childhood circumcision for understandable reasons. Our 'understanding' the sh…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:14 AM
43

Why indeed. Let's pretend we're not aware of the hidden motives there.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:13 AM
2

She didn't like it when I told her sex toys have made women obsolite years ago. Well that's because you forgot TV dinners and frozen pizzas.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 05:33 PM
2

There will always be dangerous work. Robots can help, sure, but we're nowhere near eliminating human danger to the point where we should consider it an option.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 05:33 PM
3

As an enthusiastic men's rights advocate, I can assure you that 100% of the occupants here at /r/MensRights are not only enthusiastically in favour of ALL women being raped on buses, but also injecting them with HIV, and feeding their skin to cannibals, because we're just a bunch of gosh darn misogynistic monsters. Now go mine this and prattle to your SRS buddies. If you don't need an /s then I don't need one either =/
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:54 PM
5

It already has, but we haven't ended it. Many men actually aid and defend them. That's the tricky part.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:52 PM
2

Would you happen to recall the series and issue number? Perhaps the story title? Year of publication? I'd like to find its profile on DC wikia to link to.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:51 PM
3

When you call Frank Castle 'reckless', in what context? Do you mean in regard to his own safety? I'm pretty sure Punisher is like Dexter in the sense that he ascertains that the people he goes after are guilty before killing them. Albeit he goes beyond Dexter in that he doesn't only kill murderers. I think he's also like Batman in that he will try to avoid killing innocents in the crossfire. Very interested in reading this comic now, hm... having trouble.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:51 PM
5

I wonder how many people automatically assumed the allegations in the murderer's message to be true.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:46 PM
3

capital punishment not only for rapists.. but some who might have been rapists So all men, according to Feminism.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:45 PM
2

Feminism is everywhere, even Mexico. I mean this thread is the LA times spreading feminism about Mexico.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:45 PM
1

I can only approve of this if it's RVD kind of stoning
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:44 PM
1

Grammar don't you know that black women are ALSO raped? can also make unrelated points to siderail a discussion
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:43 PM
1

You're changing the subject though fuku, our social advancement and diversity doesn't pertain to whether or not we kill our own or hunt for sport. That said, there ARE other species who kill their own and who hunt for sport, though probably not at the same percent frequency we do.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:17 PM
1

What really separates humans and animals We're not separate, humans are animals. humans try not to be brutal and animal-like. Some do, some don't. Animals do different things, so it isn't real animal-like to do anything. Not all animals are brutal.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:15 PM
0

So it's not rape if you didn't witness it? Gotta love these first-level strawman replies. One in five women have been sexually assaulted. Prove it stuffer. You won't make an ass out of us. I'm sure the percentage is higher for someone serving in the military given the documented epidemic of sexual assault in the military You're hilarious.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 10:54 AM
-1

I think some would rather us be upset about a person being raped than a person being murdered.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 10:53 AM
-2

Can we get some pics black guys wearing these suits but with red on black? White guys wearing white suits feels kinda racist. A black man bleeds red too!
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:35 AM
4

permanent mutilation. Let's not be too pessimistic. So many wonderful things being done with stem cells these days.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:33 AM
1

One major problem is that you have to do years of testing to find out if we have a successful correlation between your test result and real life Schools already do years of testing, I don't see why testing for various licenses that are useful in life (voting, driving, sex, drugs, law, medicine) couldn't be built into public schooling. Other obvious legal/ethical problems here too like "can you be demoted?" "What rights do we give a mature 14 year old? Can they purchase alcohol?" And the one you …
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:30 AM
1

First, go ahead and quantify "knowledge". Take your best shot. Isn't that a job more suited to dictionaries or for organizations? explain why that mean level of "knowledge" is caused and determined by the age. Why should I explain a stance I never presented? I said 'mean knowledge'. I'm talking about test averages. There being fluctuating averages of knowledge doesn't mean that age causes it so I don't want to offend a strawmanned stance. explain the legal basis of allowing a child to be moleste…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:27 AM
1

It took me a while to imagine, but such a comment might be hurtful to incontinent females who have to wear diapers.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:23 AM
0

Plox is hipster doofus speak for please. Anything else unclear?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:22 AM
1

You may, sir. Of course, from one shitlord to another, sometimes it's good if we give advice on how to increase that comprehension, if we think fault is in part or wholly the others. I lament if I did not do so and rudely just yelled about it. That might be due to not having the teaching skills to solve the problem. I should also entertain the idea that miscommunication can be caused by either party, or often both, and be open to being corrected. Now that said, which part of your post do you thi…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:22 AM
2

If you don't read posts, how do you come to the conclusion that someone is wrong? How do you make judgements about people being sexist if you do not evaluate their opinions? How do you know how far I am taking it if you didn't read what I said?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:17 AM
1

I understand the gravity fine. I'm making a logic analogy, I'm not at all equating the example with the topic.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:16 AM
1

Statutory rape charges denote that the victim is at some level willing, otherwise they just charge them with rape. I wonder about that. Since it's harder to prove rape than stat rape (USWAM) surely many prosecutors will just default to trying to prove sex than trying to prove there was a lack of (inadmissible) consent. The idea that an underage victim was more mature and therefore extra willing is a dangerous precedent We should never assume willingness, but conversely should not assume unwillin…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:11 AM
1

Anyone can "yes" can give consent, the issue is whether or not consent is considered legally admissible to validate acts, and whether or not we consider the consenter informed weighs into that. Who are you to decide how traumatic some one's rape experiences are...especially a child's? I don't think I ever claimed to measure how traumatic rape is. I just think in general that it's more traumatic to be assaulted than to do something you consented to. Sometimes getting punched is more traumatic tha…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:09 AM
1

Aren't insults subjective? People can 'take' something as an insult, but this wouldn't mean it is intended that way. Surely there are greater ways to criticize someone than to refer to them by an undesired title.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:07 AM
1

Surely not everyone thinks they alone are right. After all, if people share your opinions, you will also think they are right as well. Plus we can look back and think we were wrong, but only after having changed to new opinions which we now think are right. I could wager that it is impossible to think you are wrong in the present though, since the realization of wrongness would itself change the opinion (now held and thought of as right) and can only perceive that of past self.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:06 AM
0

we are basing these 'pronouns we base ourselves on' from SCIENCE not some overly sensitive feels Science has better shit to do than to be called upon to police our pronouns. If you are born something you can't just fucking change that with some emotions and bullshit ideology Well, you can change some things (like changing a penis into a pseudoclit) with SCIENCE, and such surgical options are often motivated by emotions and ideologies. As for changing your preferred term of reference, why not? Yo…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:04 AM
0

the problem is that only part of her is male.The part that deals with gender identity in her brain is in fact female, which is why she has gender dysphoria. I'm doubtful there's any XX cells in the brain (has this ever been shown) so I'm not sure science-wise why I should call the brain female. I don't see any aspect of thought as exclusively male or female, even if there are tendencies of association, so surely we should say 'feminine' or 'masculine' personality rather than female/male. The for…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:01 AM
1

So if we have nothing to do with bus drivers we should hate bus drivers if feminists associate us with them? =/
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:58 AM
1

they see a broken system, and instead of wanting it fixed, they want to take advantage of it Why 'instead of'? Surely PUAs could want the system fixed while still trying to live within it. When you say 'take advantage of', I am not sure how. How would PUA be changed from certain system fixes?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:58 AM
1

I see
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:53 AM
1

I thought so too, just playing DA.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:53 AM
2

He wants people to call him something he is not for the purpose of appeasing his egocentric pursuit of internalizing an idealized other. So? Wouldn't that be the same as if someone changed their name to something they prefer better? Your analogy about directions isn't the same here. Asking people to refer to them by identity terms they prefer is different than telling others how to describe the entirety of the world, which is what your very different analogy is doing. It's not so much crazy, it'…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:53 AM
1

Contrivance Not something I'm all too familiar with, out of the defs I found on Wikt... a means, such as an elaborate plan or strategy, to accomplish a certain objective something overly artful or artificial Which would you mean, the second? Due to 'overly'? Is there a problem with making elaborate plans or being artful?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:50 AM
1

Strong strawman arguing.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:48 AM
2

You can't reason with a screaming banshee. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:48 AM
1

you could avoid all that by exercising and having a good diet True, and you can do that while wearing a corset. It's easy to get lost in the process of eating and overindulge, getting full due to abdominal compression gives some feedback. don't tell me it's cause of "genes", genes give you a predisposition, they do not make people fat. I have no idea why you're telling me this, I never insinuated that =/
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:35 AM
1

Any time I hear 'women would never lie to say they were raped when they were not' I want to say 'men would never lie to say they did not rape when they did rape' in reply. Just to make a point. Sadly if you do stuff like that, people will ignore that you're simply making a satire to show how bullshit it sounds and quote you as if you were being literal.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:09 AM
2

"as harmful" is a start, but 'more harmful' could be more realistic. I'd be interested in seeing a numerical comparison between the amount of men killed due to rape accusations prior to conviction versus the amount of women killed due to their name being leaked in association with a rape case. If someone wants to include suicides, I'd like to see them listed separately, and for both sides. cell phones, which become weapons in the hands of predators Folks, Christie Blatchford is on to something h…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:07 AM
2

I'm not sure if Wikipedia has the technology to do that, nor do I think it is within their policy to do so. They can certainly ban multiple accounts editing their web site from these 'parties' they host though. I wonder if they register at all, or just impersonate 1 user from the same shared IP address.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:05 AM
1

Never mind that there are articles like 'women in computing', naturally, because there should also be 'feminism and computing' or else Wikipedia must be a tool of The Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:03 AM
1

Agreed, Liberals can definitely use faggot as an insult. Not everyone agrees with homosexuality appropriating a bunch of words, be it for compliment or insult. We just tend to use it to insult people based on other criteria, not on being homosexual, which is not burdensome. If anything, heterosexuality is closer to true faggotry because it produces children, who are burdensome, just like when you have to carry a bushel of faggots up a mountain. It's talking about lumber.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:02 AM
0

Um no, a lot of us non-Fox watchers do so, what a PoS stereotype.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:00 AM
1

I'm confused, what form is irony is involved in calling someone faggots?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:00 AM
2

Careful everyone, don't downvote Stilgar or you are supporting the CP industry and directly harming children, basically. Don't have any contrary opinions as to the accuracy of his evaluation of Wikipedia and how to label the media stored on Commons.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:58 AM
1

they are refusing to scrub the child porn. Are you referring to actual real CP (ie of real victims), or rather are you describing public domain illustrations done by some dead French or German fucks at the turn of the 19th century (and similar such media) and using a broad term to describe it, which risks misleading people as to the nature of what you are criticizing?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:42 AM
1

PARTY TIME What could go wrong?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:34 AM
6

poor terrifying
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:17 AM
13

She's male, but it doesn't mean we should base our pronouns on chromosomes and not our self-image.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:16 AM
2

I expect the defense they might make is "no, I meant engaging in CONSENSUAL sex with the male prisoners" but that's not the vibe I got.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:16 AM
2

pal = Skinner, ple = idea It doesn't mean someone doesn't care about other's feelings if one doesn't let them dictate the terms they use. For example, sometimes feminists call some things rape we don't think are rape, yet we don't cater to feels by saying something we don't believe in. I might use she/her for Manning but it can take a little bit of adjustment, we tend to switch when our perspective of a person actually changes. Some resist change altogether, others might do it slowly, others rat…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:15 AM
3

Dude, Manning wants us to add an 's' to 'h', it's not exactly a big deal here. I think to avoid the he/her Brad/Chelsea thing I might just say Manning. Heck, considering how much courage it took to come forward with the proof of those atrocities, perhaps we should all popularize the phrase "to Manning up". Although verbs that end with 'ing' (spring, fling) can be troublesome in some contexts. "I'm flinging a ball, I'm going to start Manning up tomorrow". I considered "Mann up" but while that mig…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:13 AM
5

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'fake man' more of an insult thrown at FtMs (transmen)? I thought 'fake woman' would be an insult more commonly thrown at MtFs (transwomen). Or am I mixing this up again? This wouldn't happen if Erin just updated Venus Envy more often.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 10:41 PM
1

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Oneiros_Grip
/r/MensRights28/08/13 10:39 PM
3

I don't really like how the PUA is presented as an 'enemy' of MHRAs. Being PUA doesn't make you against men's rights. There's nothing necessarily wrong about trying to change yourself in ways that happen to attract women. It sucks if we make that the only reason though, but a lot of changes (like say, building humongous lats) have their own benefits.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 10:06 PM
0

You forgot to nope abortion.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 10:01 PM
1

academic feminism is beyond retarded. It spits at facts and properly done research, in favour of hyperbolic myths and conspiracy theories based on their own personal anecdotes. I dunno about retarded man. It's almost like getting a PhD in being a priest or something. There's a kind of twisted genius to the whole process of altering the world view in unfounded ways. What feminists are not: Good looking, successful, driven people. That's a load of shit. I've seen lots of feminist who I think are g…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:42 PM
1

They are not going to listen to you, they aren't going to even CONSIDER listening to you. Sounds too prejudiced to me bro. You speak too all-or-nothing. Prone to stubbornness doesn't leave it their only option. Too divisive. They say the same shit about us sometimes too and it's irksome. The people you are trying to convince have nothing useful to contribute. That's a load of shit, being a feminist doesn't make people useless. People can have all kinds of bad opinions that hamper their functioni…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:40 PM
1

Too pessimistic. Walking away is never the only remaining option. Imagine if teachers had such a give-up attitude. "lay down the textbook, if they don't get it, they're stupid and will never learn"
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:27 PM
1

We don't KNOW that will happen. There's just an overwhelming likelihood.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:27 PM
1

It isn't so much that goalposts are, the 'goal' is quite irrelevant. But post and penis are alliterative in combination. Notice the phallic high-reaching t.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:26 PM
1

The closest thing to a rape culture that exists is actually against men. Rape in prison is accepted and joked about. Not to mention comedy films: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUWkXuDb-4 Unless someone can point out to me where a woman being raped is presented as a comedy.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:25 PM
1

didn't know when my arguments were becoming cruel Know, or simply cared less about perceived cruelties than the truth? Any examples of this cruelty? To me cruelty is going out of one's way to be unnecessarily malicious, usually a kind of personal attack. Were you making personal attacks in the debate?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:19 PM
1

study logical fallacies, if you haven't already. Knowing when someone is trying to "cheat" at the argument makes it much easier to dismiss huge chunks of their nonsense at a time. You'd think so, but even when studying them, it sucks when you know it's a fallacy but forget the exact latin/phrase to describe it. Even when you do know how to refer to it though, it may not benefit your opponent or fence-sitters unless they do study fallacies and can understand both the accusation and how to recogni…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:17 PM
2

The best response is to make sure they've addressed your points before allowing them to move on I find sometimes when we do this we get accused of tone-policing. Cause apparently pointing out bullshit goalpost movement is attacking feels.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:15 PM
1

Is it really piracy if a guy has 100 gold dablooms and you magically copy yourself 100 gold dablooms and leave and he still has his?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:14 PM
1

That's a bias in reporting rates. People care more about reporting larceny than jaywalking or littering. Heck, I'd wager drunk driving, drinking in public, underage drinking, all these things probably exceed larceny.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:13 PM
1

I feel like it shouldn't be necessary, but... /s I know what you mean man. Honestly like... I'd rather get downvotes than use /s sometimes. It just sickens me. Better to get downvoted by guys who take too serious than to have to baby them.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:13 PM
1

I don't think so, you can have people agree with you over the net, and it feels so much more sincere when it's in a complete void of repercussions for the agreer, unfettered by pressure that might lead people to falsely agree IRL.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:12 PM
1

Were you being ironic, or engaging in satire? I don't see the necesssity of the two sentences. Do we pretend to infallibility? Or is that a strawmanned thought?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:11 PM
1

such a nebulous label. I swear I saw this used a month or so back on here, such a cool adjective. Must remember.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:09 PM
1

Usage doesn't have to be connected to its literal definition. I dunno man, I know we may be like that with cursing, but usage following definition is the foundation of language and I'd feel better if we also did so with our expletives. I mean... even the harshest shit doesn't even sound harsh anymore. Whether or not 'cunt' bothers me IRL is more about tone anyway, and internet lacks that. Better to try and expand on a clever breadth of rhetoric to provoke thought with weird insults. Cunt doesn't…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:08 PM
1

Agreed, really all crimes should work this way I think.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:07 PM
2

Still, not everyone drinks and smokes, and it can be hard to prove. Whereas with rape, the burden is put on the accused to mysteriously prove that someone said yes to them.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:05 PM
2

Nothing happened because she told the cops the truth Telling the police the truth after spreading lies about a person shouldn't clear you of the risk you've put them at. If we outlaw jaywalking for the danger it creates for motorists, we should outlaw false accusations for the danger it puts the accused in. I don't care if nothing actually happened, it could have. It's the same reason we outlaw drunk driving. Endangering others needlessly should not be acceptable. Only her friends and some rando…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:03 PM
1

using that logic. someone can be a feminist and for the mutilation of female genitals. Yes, they can. It depends on what their opinions are about the issue. I know labia elongation is one form of genital mutilation which is viewed as sex-enhancing, and I expect feminists could hold that view about hoodectomies, just as some of us seem to about foreskinectomies.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:50 PM
1

Factors aren't causes. I don't agree, I see them that way. I can't view causes in singular ways like you seem to be doing here. The rapist is where causes consolidate, but preceding causes affect him. Picture reinforces this viewpoint. Which viewpoint? This all starts because of strawman arguing for the most part since people aren't generally saying 'clothing causes rape'. Rapists cause it, but we can predict how to influence human behaviour here.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:50 PM
1

What are you saying in my statement is far from true? I'm less concerned about doctors and sys admins, I'm more confident in their ability to, if not google efficiently, to process what they read, ask questions, etc. What I'm saying is a lot of people won't do this and may google the wrong resources. I'm really not even sure what your statement is in response to in my post.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:44 PM
1

God... I'm becoming what I hate. I have outbursts just like this because of people misinterpreting statements and pulling at what they think is a hidden message instead of taking it literally and now I'm doing it, sorry. I think on some level I was conscious of it too... it's like my unconscious is trying to troll when I'm sleep deprived. I need to crash.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:42 PM
0

why only one charge of rape when they had sex multiple times? Not sure, I didn't read the case that closely. You think maybe only one of the multiple instances was being called rape by the accused? The influence of people in a position of power can be very subtle, it doesn't have to be an active thing. Yes, but the "use" in abuse is an action-verb. If someone abuses, they're taking a conscious malicious action. The mere situation of having someone under someone else on a social level changes the…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:40 PM
0

Yeah no linkspam plox. I believe you are insinuating something untrue here. While Comins and I might both rightly think that people can learn from experiences of suffering, she has the outlook of 'I wouldn't have spared them', but I would certainly have spared people suffering. There are better less cruel ways to promote thinking about issues.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:35 PM
0

Nice music, watched whole thing, is this to address something in my comment though?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:34 PM
2

I feels wrong that they need another syllable though. "Girl Up" sounds kinda like "Grow Up", so it might work. We could adopt "Boy Up" to be fair. I like cowgirls today
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:28 PM
1

screeching that i hate equality because i'm not a feminist, after i just explained that i prefer an egalitarian belief system. From their perspective, that we don't agree that feminism is egalitarian in nature must by default mean that we are lying, that we are not egalitarian, and that we are maliciously misrepresenting feminism out of inherent misogynistic tendencies. The idea that we simply don't buy into the pretty wrapping and are being honest upsets them too much. On occasion you do get so…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:26 PM
14

It's fine for him to do both. It's not scapegoating, women do generally get kept from the more dangerous work.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:36 AM
4

Considering how many factories pay minimum wage, this may not be workable, and that would mean leaving the position he's already filling open.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:35 AM
3

If we're to do it, we need a phrase besides 'man up'. "button up" ?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:34 AM
9

I've worked in various factories and completely agree. This even happens in retail. Men do the majority of physical labour, but everyone gets the same wage.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:33 AM
1

When it says he admitted to a rape charge, that could clearly be twisting that he admitted to the sex which is automatically being classified as rape for statutory reasons. That doesn't at all mean he is a threat to society, nor does it mean more will be in danger, nor that the girl was in danger herself. EVEN if she was really in control of the relationship, it reeks of statutory rape due to the position of power, so it's really non-consensual after all If someone is really in control, how it "…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:02 AM
-1

Rambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members... So this could mean he could be meeting with his two 17 year old sons/nephews. Relevance? Restriction's clearly too broad. and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman. I get the potential relevance of the first part, but I'm not entirely clear why someone in the program would be obligated to inform couns…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:57 AM
1

how does one go about determining someone is "older than their chronological age"? Establish a mean knowledge level for people of a given age group and have someone exceed that and meet the mean knowledge level of a higher one. what is the point of sentencing someone to 15 years in prison and then suspending all but 31 days? That's just DESIGNED to hurt the victim's parents. That makes no sense, how is it designed to hurt the parents of the alleged victim?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:54 AM
1

Gaps are fine, I can understand having different skill tests required for oral and anal, since the mechanics of the latter are more complicated and risky, although I think you should need an enhanced license to do deepthroating.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:53 AM
2

We should do away with adult/child label and instead just have licensing systems for any dangerous privileges like drinking, driving, sex, smoking and practicing medicine. Miss any? I'm not sure if voting or practicing law are dangerous, it might benefit society if voters were informed. People seem afraid to legislate voting rights based on knowledge instead of age though.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:51 AM
2

shouldn't matter if the girl was willing or not she was below the age of consent. Willingness always matters. Lazy age limits aside, rape-rape is more traumatic than stat-"rape".
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:49 AM
1

If someone was killed on school property would they run their own murder investigation? It would be fine if Shinichi Kudo were on the case.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:02 AM
3

I think if there is concern about victims having to be around those who mean them wrong, that you could potentially take BOTH parties out of school (the potential rapist and potential liar) for their mutual protection. People who are victims of rape are in a fragile state and may be upset. People who are victims of rape-lies are also targets of violence. It's not fair to punish one or the other without knowing the truth, but taking both out (so long as the innocent party is later compensated for…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:50 AM
1

Half the time I think people from there are more trolls than feminists. Not that you can't be both.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:47 AM
2

But if the victim is a student they would have to attend classes with their false accuser. You're okay with that? Obviously on the exceedingly rare chance it turns out to be a "rape", the expulsion could be overturned. Fixed that for you.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:46 AM
2

the President himself threatened them to enact anti male policies on pain of expensive lawsuits with his Dear Collegue letter. could you specify what you're referring to? Is it this ?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:45 AM
3

Well hey, let's expel women just in case they falsely accused people of rape too. Treating women like they are liars prior to proving that they lied initiates an ideal process of self-exploration. "How do I see men?" "If I didn't lie about rape, could I have?" and "Do I have the potential to lie,, as they say I did?" These are good questions.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:43 AM
1

COULD you have raped her? Can't anyone rape anyone under the required circumstances and frame of mind? Maybe not Stephen Hawking... unless he has some new attachments for his chair.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:41 AM
1

an innocent student isn't going to "learn from the incident," is he? Methinks that innocent students WOULD learn something from the incident, incident being the sham trial. Learn something about bias, people, the world.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:39 AM
2

Who's talking about fining prosecutors? Do you mean the accuser? The case in question is actually because the women were skipping reporting to police and instead just sending mass e-mails claiming he raped them even though it's based on murky vague shit like "I remember a shadowy figure above me" and "something went in my mouth"
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:37 AM
1

Based on the article it sounded like a big bunch of false memory syndrome shit going on there. The evidence appeared to show there were 2 male cousins sleeping in the same room who would've been woken up had he gone in to molest them. Wait... what if it was them? :D
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:35 AM
-1

My heart goes out to you bro I hate it when people accuse others of trolling, what a fucking telepathic waste of time.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:34 AM
0

When you read a news report that a man was convicted of rape, do you insist that rape might not have occurred because the news report doesn't spell out the evidentiary support for the conviction YUP, I sure do. Why on earth should we believe something definitely happened when we haven't personally seen the evidence to make up our own minds about it? Should we have utter faith in juries, judges and the system not to convict the innocent?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:33 AM
1

The strawman is that people try to make it out that that would be the case, which is retarded. If someone doesn't want to come forward because they're too stupid to understand how evidence works, that's their problem. These are separate ideas, and you're wrong on both counts. Nobody here is strawmanning to claim that victims would actually get successfully sued under most circumstances. OTHERS might do that. What we do recognize, however, is that others who mislead victims like this (or assumpti…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:31 AM
1

Are you also suggesting that if a criminal is careful enough to leave no trace of physical evidence that the victim had NOT in fact been raped? FFS frankie, are you so pissed off about Zosi falsely accusing you of strawmanning that now you're actually going to do it?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:26 AM
1

Then she'd be a fucking idiot. I think that's a bit harsh. People aren't idiots for not understanding how the legal system works, just ignorant or misled. I don't want to harsh on people for not knowing stuff. Plus everyone's afraid of getting framed, no? so tired of the strawman you presented How is it a straw man? It's a legit possibility that people feel this way because not everyone is well informed about judicial procedures.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:25 AM
1

I could imagine a situation where a woman who had little to no physical evidence to support her claim (e.g., if her attacker wore a condom) would feel intimidated by the possibility that, if reported and charges failed to carry through, she herself could face charges, merely for having insufficient evidence. Yes, we can imagine that. People are ignorant. But it doesn't work that way, lack of evidence may lead to a not guilty judgment, but it does not mean you're automatically attacked for perjur…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:22 AM
1

I notice in this article under phrase "see here" it links to this article which has Dean Kilpatrick claiming: The prevalence of rape, "to make a long story very short," has not decreased over the past 15 years. The number of adult women who will become victims of forcible rape has actually increased 25 percent. Wow. This set off my warning signs here. Anyone wanna bet that this could be influenced by population increases (ie total number, not percentage) and increased rates of reporting or convi…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:15 AM
1

Guys, I think prosecuting men for rape will discourage men from coming consensually in the future, due to fear or being framed for a crime they didn't commit. On that same basis for why we should not punish false accusations, we should not punish rapes, so that we don't chill the feeling of of freedom we want people to have. Just like we want people to feel free to speak without litigation, we must have people free to act without litigation.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:01 AM
2

"alleged abuse", also
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:59 AM
1

false rape claims to police cannot result in defamation damages. Well, it might result in some if the cops themselves spread such claims around, but people who speak to police have some expectation of professional privacy to not let it get out. But if cops leak shit like names to the media, sue the cops please.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:58 AM
1

lying about sexual abuse is an insult to those that actually happened No, it isn't. Insults are like if you say "people who get raped suck". Your argument is about as logical as saying if I lie and say I have a 10 inch cock to impress women, it's an insult to men who truly have 10 inch cocks. How is it, exactly?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:56 AM
0

Innocent people go to prison after being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Should we refuse to outlaw false accusations in case people get framed for it? In that case, perhaps we should legalize rape, since people get framed for that too? Or does the logic not extend to other injustices?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:54 AM
1

something with as much social stigma as child abuse. Not sure about the 'as much' part. Raping adults probably falls somewhere below sexual forms and above other forms in terms of stigma.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:52 AM
1

not arguing about how MRAs prioritize different men's issues, i'm arguing about those who call themselves MRAs yet are selective to men's issues. Same thing, you can't prioritize without being selective, and you can't pick 1 of 2 competing rights-based viewpoints without deprioritizing or even omitting the other. The reason i call those people hypocrites is because you will find them speaking out against female circumcision but at the same time speaking in favor of male circumcision. That isn't …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:39 AM
1

Right, but one of these things is second priority. False accusations damage (to me ruin means death) men's lives. They do not ruin real rape charges though. Concerns express relate to chilling effects on reporting rates I thought
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:34 AM
1

People talk to others in a lot of different ways, I don't think there's any set way that people talk to strangers. We don't absolutely know if this story was invented. 'he's literally shaking and repeating 'rape culture' over and over', that's a thing people do? People do literally shake when they're angry. I don't take this that he was literally ONLY saying rape culture. I take it as paraphrasing that the term was probably dropped every other sentence. When people repeat something that often, w…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:04 AM
1

Apparently I can but it's possible that whatever source I come across isn't the one you think as ideal for making your point. It says: The local Left Party in Sormland, Sweden is known as a feminist and socialist party and proposed the law You said "the country" but it was a political party, not the country itself, lobbying for this, so my question was valid.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:28 AM
1

Kinda curious, what do you think of the argument made in this poster I just came across? Cause and effect links don't work on percentages you fucking idiot. I never said they did. But percentages do reflect different causes. out of all the "factors" the one you choose to focus on is how a woman is dressed? Nope, I'm reacting to how feminists focus on this being included amongst dozens of other things. If I were ever asked for tips on how to prevent rape (which hasn't actually come up in any casu…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:26 AM
1

like it or not, some people still oppose them Opposing an option doesn't mean others should be held liable for option B. If I hit Homer Simpson with my car and skin his knee, I'll pay for some antibiotic salve to rub on it, but I won't pay to amputate his whole fucking leg and subsequent welfare because he wants to nurture the puss growing on his scab like his newest child until there's no other way to save his life. it's not like abortion is a 100% no-risk procedure Irrelevant, unless the rate …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:52 AM
1

Can you prove nothing happened? What happened is subtle as shit, it doesn't mean that nothing happened if someone can't put together a case about why being called a rapist has upset their life. Someone isn't "just a bitch" (not that I like that choice of term) for accusing you of a crime you didn't commit. Expressions like that are for simple rudeness, like "hey you are fat and bald". Rudeness and insults are on a whole other level from committing crimes or accusing people of doing a serious une…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:39 AM
1

You were arguing against the point "they are mutually exclusive" by saying they weren't. Not understanding the also/especially part. I think I'm vaguely understanding a potential different sense under which your phrase could have meant though... but I can't seem to phrase it.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:35 AM
2

Victims will only be scared off if they are presented with half-truths. If people educate them adequately that they will not be jailed unless there is actual proof they intentionally lied, what is there to fear? The ones causing fear here are those who twist the issues. A lot of feminists twist this and say "oh, they want you sent to jail if the man is declared 'not guilty' since that automatically means you lied" which is a load of black and white shit. THEY would be the ones encouraging victim…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:33 AM
2

I don't know how you can say a false rape accusation can cause violence. Well, it's somewhat indirect, since it can lead to others engaging in vigilante justice against the accused. Basically it's not something you're directly doing, but something which your words are causing to come about due to a panic, in this case a moral one. Thus why 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre's is a pretty good analogy, except doing that is a lot LESS dangerous, yet there's a law against it? The danger of vigilan…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:31 AM
1

A couple Dicks are my heroes, I take offense to it being used as a pejorative.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:19 AM
1

Dat smell, it be feces. The MRA is not generally about a fear of losing our privileges. I mean, the feminists haven't exactly come to chop off our feet to make us shorter, right? They haven't yet tried to cut off our arms to deprive us of our superior biceps brachii strength. We have, on the other hand, been victims of privileges women enjoy, and victims of discrimination. Twist it how you like.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:17 AM
2

You are making the claim that some of these people are acting contrary to what they state. I didn't claim this specifically, but inevitably there are liars in every group, so it's a solid suspicion. I have more faith in people's greed than in their scruples. All you have provided as support is the fact that some could theoretically not want to actually end rape. Incorrect. It is not merely apathy that is evidence, but also financial incentive. Rape is good business for certain industries, just l…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:15 AM
2

Just because they receive money doesn't mean that they are not being honest. Obviously. I never said getting money makes you dishonest, just that it creates a potential pressure to promote it if honesty does not benefit someone's career. Last time I checked, getting a degree in Women's Studies doesn't normally pay very well at all, unless you actually become a professor It pays better the more work that is available, so those interested in increasing job opportunities for WS majors would like to…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:04 AM
1

I don't agree, being a hypocrite is living opposite what you claim to be. Claiming to be for men's rights doesn't mean you have to be for specific rights or every conceivable right, that's a reduction into absurdity. It's up to individual MRAs to choose which rights they support, and which rights they do not. In some past nations men had the right to sex with their wives, for example, or the right to choose to circumcise their sons, or the right to keep or hurt slaves. Not every conceivable men'…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:59 AM
1

cool story to It might benefit you to make fewer unfounded assumptions about others' desires or state of health though. The desire to see false accusers jailed in myself (and I assume most others here) is not so we can live in a magical world where we can rape whoever we please without fear of ramifications. Rather, it's more along the lines of us wanting to live in a magical world where we can have consensual sex with others without having to fear the ramifications of someone falsely accusing u…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:54 AM
2

What a load. No, using that phrase does not discredit the whole movement. Movements are not discredited by single outlier statements, they're discredited by things ascribed to en masse. Female hysteria, from what I've read about, sounds like doctors thought women were horny (which is probably right, since people probably ignored the clitoris and didn't get them off and stuff) and that made'm frustrated, which is probably true. The problem with how that theory was applied is that it was used to t…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:48 AM
1

men make unwarranted sexual comments about me Why would that mean they view you as an object? Why would that mean they do not respect you? I don't mind behaviour like this getting some criticism, it's just how it's done. "Rudeness" would be closer to the truth than "objectification" or "disrespect". Rudeness describes behaviour, which we have more evidence for, while the others describe motive, which we have less (if any) evidence for. It's more strongly connected with reality and objectivity to…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:44 AM
1

Half of what people? In general, or those here? Yeah we're always going to have some shitty-opinioned MRAs here (and a good number of them are probably fake-trolls) but that doesn't mean we have to get butthurt about anything that edges on humour. The absurdity was clear enough in the phrasing that I took it as humour. I'm not saying we should laugh along with comments like this, nor that we should leave them alone. But I think there are ways to engage them where we enter into a line of inquiry …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:36 AM
1

Damnit, your feeling guilty makes me hate you less, that's no fun. Not only because it adds depth to my mental construction, but it makes me empathize since I've also felt hateful about many (if not all) of my observed preferences as well. I mean, preferring women is sexist as shit, not finding a person as attractive for being turned into a male in the womb by his Y chromosome (something he had no control over) is really no better than preferring someone who wasn't genitally mutilated, something…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:33 AM
1

Odd... I mean honestly for an orifice-meaning word surely we have something better. We should popularize better insults. What happened to stuff like "brute"? Nowadays if you say this, it's like a term of affection for a UFC wrestler or if you use it you get shamed for using 'womanly' insults. I just don't feel very sophisticated saying or seeing cunt... it's just so... unspecific.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:28 AM
0

Yes, but the people in question are people who are not educated about what to look for, nor do they understand the issue, so they would not be in that position.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:27 AM
1

I didn't say it didn't hurt all men Nor did I say you said that. I said it was being ignored. Ignoring an issue isn't the same as denying it exists. Maybe she is so upset at dude she is accusing she won't stop to consider the male gender Yup, and rather attack her for this bullshit (or, y'know, for lying to hurt someone), we accept it and resort to 'but think of the womenz'. It's evidence of a serious priority problem if that's what we're led to doing. even if she is so mad at a man she doesn't …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:26 AM
1

Not everyone drinks and smokes at parties though. I never said it would have to be the ONLY approach. Scattershot bro. they'd get disciplined and/or kicked out of college which is a lot easier and low-risk than getting them convicted of rape. lower reward though, if someone gets kicked out of college for smoking it isn't going to damage their life to the same degree as being thought a rapist
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:22 AM
1

Could you link to this 'list of hate groups' you're speaking of? You make it sound like there's only one. As far as I'm aware they release quarterly reports which changes the list every 3 months or so. Even if I don't include a beverage on a "drinks" list, if I make a "wine coolers" list and say "these are all drinks" on that list, what am I listing the beverage as?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:19 AM
0

as a woman (and a feminist), "cut dicks" certainly do NOT look hotter Getting kind of sick of seeing this 'as a woman' or 'as a feminist' shit everywhere. Does being these things give some kind of special perspective on dick aesthetics? I don't understand the purpose here. To declare that some women like uncut dicks? That some feminists do? I think we already know that to be a statistical inevitability. I'd like to see some more "as a homosexual man (and a pro wrestler) I love men's foreskin". T…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:23 PM
4

I kind of hate you for your aesthetic preference for cut dicks, but I realize how unfair that is. Y'know, like how on the flipside, some women might hate men with an aesthetic preference for fake tits or clitless vaginas. It's just aesthetics, sure, but there's still that inherent sense of hostility towards those whose moral reactions to such things don't compromise their enjoyment of it.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:20 PM
3

Feminists want men cut because women think cut dicks look hotter I'm not entirely sure that's true. It could be, but it also might be for other reasons like... reducing male sexual pleasure making sex with men painful for women making masturbation painful for men so that they feel more reliant on women for release enforcing the idea that men are messy slobs who couldn't possible clean themselves and that surgery is the only resort to keep them sanitary Did I miss anything?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:18 PM
2

Many MRAs are also circumcised, and they hold the same unfortunate bias. Not all circumcised MRAs hold such a bias. Please apply some adjectives in the future to be clearer about your meaning.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:15 PM
2

I don't agree with you gram. One can be an MRA by being selectively for certain rights and not other ones. It is possible for someone to be an MRA in regard to financial integrity and not genital integrity, for example. If you are active for a single male right, that's MRA. You don't have to ascribe to every single right being fought about. If that were the case we'd be very small.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:15 PM
1

Did this link get taken down? I'm not finding this post when I open the link.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:12 PM
9

Farrel's point is that 'unwanted intercourse' is NOT rape. Rape is when you don't consent to intercourse and it is done to you. People consent to shit they don't fully want to do all the time for various reasons. Not everyone wants to go to work, but they go and flip burgers, for other rewards besides the inherent joy of burger-flipping. Like money. "I didn't want to fuck the guy, but I wanted him to keep buying me presents" isn't rape.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:11 PM
4

I hope any woman who falsely reports rape realizes not only is she a shitty person for hurting a single young man who didn't deserve it but also for hurting every victim who is doubted and shamed and guilted, many of whom never report rape for fear of being called false reporters. Right, so a false accusation only hurts 1 man, but hurts every raped woman? Let's ignore how it hurts men in general by branding our gender as a rapist, too. Or, y'know, perhaps we could do away with this broad indirec…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:00 PM
0

Can you really consent when being blackmailed/threatened? Yes, yes you can, but it is a coerced consent, and coerced consent can qualify as rape depending on the severity. It kinda depends on what we're talking about here. If the blackmail/threat is "fuck me or I'll tell your friends you still have a teddy bear" that's fucking stupid. If it's "or I'll tell my brothers you raped me and they'll bomb your car" then it's serious.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:58 PM
1

there is a form of inappropriate sexual assault that utilizes power differentials and inappropriate social pressure ( eg if you don't suck my dick you get an F in this class). In this instance, there is technically still a "choice" but agency has really been taken away from the victim How does a victim lack agency here? Pretty sure teachers can't just randomly give Fs to A students. If a student keeps copies of their work, they can call a teacher out on it and one of their peers can grade the pa…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:56 PM
0

Oh please fuck off with this concern. Wow, someone makes a joke. This utterly invalidates all other comments. I'm more intrigued why LOTW chose six in particular.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:51 PM
-1

women, like the one you speak of, don't understand how serious a rape accusation is, and how much damage it can cause, really pisses me off. What a fucking cunt. Do we call men cunts when some of them don't understand the seriousness of damage? I'm wondering if there's just something we can collectively call them rather than genitalia-associated insults.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:50 PM
12

I don't see false accusers as being idiots, personally. They CAN be, but idiots are more likely to make mistakes, not keep their lies straight, and be found out. Clever false rape accusers are more likely to get away with it. It's not exactly 'stupid' to exploit power to hurt others, lack of care for others is not idiocy.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:48 PM
3

women who aren't complete and total idiots. The vast majority Some of us might perceive the majority of men and women alike as being complete/total idiots. Of course, one could make an argument that the only way to be a complete/total idiot is to be dead.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:47 PM
3

Horrible people are also 'true human beings', I hate that language. In b4 murderers are inhuman and some species of fish.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:46 PM
5

Professers are getting paid to discuss rape, prosecutors are getting paid to accuse people of it, conselers are getting paid to counsel for it, so yeah, there IS financial incentive to keep the wheels turning. It's not exclusive to them, mind you. Police have incentive to criminalize more and more things to get easy busts and higher budgets. Do you have any evidence that there are Women's Studies teachers who don't really want to reduce rape, or are you just pulling that out of your ass? Do you …
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:46 PM
7

Feminists spend a lot of time discussing rape because it's a pretty big fucking deal. Your idea that activists of any stripe, fighting against something, are actually fighting against their own interests because if they achieved their goal there would no longer be a need to be an activist about that thing, might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If we were talking about volunteer activists, I would agree, but a lot of people are getting PAID to do this.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:43 PM
5

your justification of rape is that it helps the funding of anti-rape and it keeps women (and not men who are anti-rape) occupied... I'm gonna go ahead and disagree. Congratulations, you just disagreed with a straw man. FB explained that this motivates people who profit from destruction. Not that FB thinks it is justified. Glassmakers can have an interest, if business is slow, in vandals breaking windows, to increase business. Pointing this out doesn't make the observer themself in favour of wind…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:42 PM
3

MC didn't say they were exclusive, strawmanner. They're pointing at what the primary concern mentioned is. Never mind that people are being directly deprived of their freedom unjustly, because it might indirectly make people trust women less and actually ask for proof of accusations.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:40 PM
3

Funny how they don't stick to that story once they're disproven, and deny it ever happened.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:39 PM
6

You just renamed feminism as egalitarianism. Right there. Learn to reddit. A strikethrough isn't renaming a movement. Rather, he is saying he doesn't think that feminists actually have an interest in stopping false rape accusations. The net benefit of harming men with them outweighs the benefit of helping actual rape victims be believed. There are those within the feminist movement whose priority is to protect women. There are others within it whose priority is to harm men. I don't know how it i…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:37 PM
3

Please stop trying to rename an entire movement just because you don't want to give them credit for the good things that come out of it. I can see with gieger mass downvoted and you mass upvoted that the brigaders are here in force. We aren't 'renaming' anything here. Seeing malicious aspects of feminism doesn't mean we deny they've done good, just that we're suspicious of the reasons underlying it based on other behaviours. You know what you're against. You don't actually know what your IRL or …
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:35 PM
-1

You can ruin a mans life with one lie. I hate the expression 'ruin life' applied to anything but murder, but I do think such lies can be more damaging and disrupting to life than actually getting raped is.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:32 PM
1

This is pretty hard to do most of the time, but there are situations where it's possible to do. For example "X raped me on Y date" yet X was on another continent visiting family during the week surrounding Y daet. Or "X came in my ass" but the rape kit shows no semen in there.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:31 PM
0

Jail time, I think. Maybe not as much as a rapist would get Why not as much?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:29 PM
6

I really hate women who falsely accuse women of rape. Oddly enough I don't come across many stories of this, would be interested in reading some news articles about it.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:29 PM
3

it will reach a boiling point where so many false rape charges come in that actual rape victims will be treated like shit until they can prove they're not making it up. When this happens, guess who will take the blame Considering that actual rape victims are sometimes treated like shit, we can say that time is now, and the actual result is that men are getting blamed for this, not false accusers. False accusers are given lip service as "bad" but are generally ignored in practice.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:28 PM
-1

True feminists have an interest in stopping false rape accusations too. That depends on what you mean by 'true feminist'. I don't agree with this here. For those of us who perceive feminism as the effort to elevate women over men, if false rape accusations accomplish the goal of putting men in jail and ruining them economically to free up career positions for women, I'd say false rape accusations fall well within the lines of feminism's true subtle goals.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:26 PM
2

You start prosecuting people for shit like that, you just reinforce prosecuting stupid kids on halo threatening to burn your house down or imprisoning people who say "I'm going to fucking kill Steve," without actual intent. False threats of violence differ from accusations that crimes actually occurred. False rape accusations, even if they aren't made to police, should at least fall under the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' area, since it can lead to violence.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:25 PM
3

she didn't lie to the police. She just lied to her friends and boyfriend. That can't be made illegal. Considering this often leads to people white-knighting for the big black liars perhaps we should make them accountable if shit happens though.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:23 PM
0

They deserve to be charged with something?!??! Your question marks disturb me. doesnt mean that whores who make false accusations should walk free Please don't insult good honest whores by associating them with these liars. I suppose that Im infact a man whore for having participated in this. Not unless you got paid bro. I believe the term is slut when describing promiscuous behaviour and low standards. I don't thinking hooking up with a BBW necessarily makes you a slut though. Don't be so hard …
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:19 PM
-1

You wouldn't have a men's rights movement if it weren't for feminism. So guess what? Feminism involved whether you like it or not. Not true. Even though feminism is a major cause of the lack of men's rights, men do victimize other men for reasons besides the benefit of women. The whole scenario in war where the men are killed and the women are kept alive as sex slaves, for example.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:18 PM
0

I could see making an exception if someone spikes the punch bowl and you thought it was fruit juice though. But in that case, I think the liability should fall on the spiker, not the person she hooks up with.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:16 PM
3

Rape isn't just "sex without consent." Rape is a VIOLENT, aggressive, forceful sexual act. It's propagated to induce TERROR against a victim. That's a load of shit. Rape can be done for reasons other than to induce terror. For example: if someone fucks a sleeping stranger, they may not know of it at all, so it couldn't terrify them. It isn't aggressive, forceful or violent either, because the victim of it isn't resisting, so there is no struggle. Rape casts a wider net than you're thinking. Lack…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:13 PM
0

My issues only stem from men acting like I am an object, men not respecting me, or men touching me without my consent. The last one being clearcut, how exactly can you know the first two when they are aspects of the mind we only make assumptions about? What if you think a man doesn't admire you, but he does? What if you are thinking he perceives you as an object, and he perceives you as a person?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:11 PM
2

I think gieger was operating on the basis of assumed gender equality. Not sure why you two are getting downvoted for your math attempts, they are cool.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:10 PM
1

To believe that the vast majority of women who accuse of rape (whether true or false) do it because they feel like it is the same as believing that the vast majority of men want to rape women It's not the "same" at all. False equivalence. They share minor similarity of being probable misconceptions. The assumption about men is far worse though.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:09 PM
5

Google can also lead people to bad reference points. Ever encountered that rape checklist?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:07 PM
2

I can't for a second excuse a woman making a false rape accusation because she's "truly confused" about what she did, they're smarter than that. People in general, men and women, are not as smart as you would like to give them credit for. You think a 2-minute web search will really clear up misunderstandings? Such a search is just as likely to bring them to content that mislead them (classic feminist 'all heterosexual intercourse is rape' and it's subtler variations) and lead them to interpret m…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:06 PM
0

I am a woman and this is not the case for me? Luckily, this mindset is not one we assume all women have, so there is allowance for exceptions like yourself ;)
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:04 PM
-5

It doesn't. Unless the temper tantrum involves threats of violence, you can opt to ignore it or break up as a result of the behaviour.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:03 PM
2

Pathetic? I don't think we should be so harsh on male badgers, I don't want to condemn them for lack of skill.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:03 PM
1

Oh please, using the phrase female hysterics doesn't mean we're getting all Plato on you. Though I don't think that was meant literally... But anyway, hysteria is something either gender can have, and if we apply a gender label to it, it means we are describing hysteria we associate with a gender for whatever reason. It could be entirely socialized reasons (like how women are conditioned to scream for help and get attention) or for some kind of inborn one (none come to mind).
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:01 PM
4

two very different things. A false rape accusation is when a rape has not occurred. A misidentification of assailant is a misidentification of assailant. Misidentification is ALSO a false rape accusation. It's just not a false rape claim. The rape really happened, but you're falsely accusing the wrong party for it.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:57 PM
2

twist: she was blind
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:56 PM
2

things like punting babies Or tossing them behind you as a distraction from mutant cannibals
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:56 PM
7

Generally we all have a pretty decent moral compass That's fucking hilarious bro. Ignoring that shit, even people with a moral compass can still be confused fucks who don't understand subtleties of human interaction and agreement. So someone could falsely conclude they were raped and see it as their moral imperetive to stop a man from hooking up with other consenting women who might potentially regret him.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:55 PM
1

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=legbeard We've had it over three years now.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:52 PM
3

is mainly propagated by young women How exactly would we know this kevin? Generally on the internet, and on tumblr, it's not exactly easy to ascertain gender.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:51 PM
1

He's lying
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:04 AM
1

Every heard the expression "in so many words" ? Nazi: "Jews eat babies! They're awful people!" Jew: "The Nazis are saying Jews are monsters!" Nazi: "We never said MONSTERS"
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:04 AM
1

They did call it that, the words 'hate' and 'group' not appearing in sequence in this list doesn't mean they didn't call it that. They just say 'site' instead of 'group' and hide the 'hate' spread out in the intro along with the inherent obvious "misogyny is hating women" thing.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:02 AM
0

Hey Komal when you say that calling a group a "Misogyny Site" is not calling it a hate group... How exactly are you defining misogyny? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 06:59 AM
1

control the culture despite being in the minority of people in power The concept that women aren't in power is disputed here. "The patriarchy" is perceivable as a figurehead. There is no power behind thrones? 'rape culture' means you think men are just constantly slamming women down and raping them in alleyways obviously!) If you want to strawman to reduce to absurdity... It sounds like you're the one being deliberately obtuse by misrepresenting criticisms of some people's idea of rape culture. …
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:45 PM
1

judges viewing mothers as the natural caregivers and all, those are problems the vast majorities of feminists have too, right? How do feminists suffer from something that leads women to win custody battles? a crazy person who thinks false rape claiming is a major problem and spermjacking is real. Both are obviously real.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:36 PM
1

True but surely if you had simply asked her why she thought you were sexist, asked if you said anything to make her think that way, you could have gotten a more tangible accusation out of her or caused her opinion to fizzle.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:34 PM
1

Linking being a woman to being sexually assaulted is incorrect. Men are sexually assaulted as well. That wouldn't make such a link false. If women are assaulted in 51% of cases and men in 49% that would be a link. Links do not mean exclusive territory, it can refer to trends. You don't understanding what words mean. Linking being a man to being a rapist is also incorrect. Women rape too. Multifaceted stats do not negate links. If 51% of rapists were male and 49% of rapists were female, that woul…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:33 PM
1

even if you "manage" risks... there is still the possibility that they either screw it up, or it breaks, and a pregnancy happens... and there is just no dealing with that (other than abortion) for someone that age. This assumes that all sexual acts are going to be heterosexual fertile intercourse. From all the other options, pregnancy won't result, and this wouldn't be an issue if we offered free abortions for society's collective benefit. an unintended pregnancy for someone who is 18+ puts a da…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:25 PM
1

Single-word terms? It's easy enough to say 'sex videos'.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:22 PM
1

You're acting like it's my responsibility to put the paper in your hands. Actually I'd say it was more the responsibility of the reporter whose article you linked. Since it didn't cite enough data to find easily, they failed in sourcing, and you failed in actually linking to a source.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:22 PM
1

Surely somewhere out there, in film if not on TV we can find a similar scene and do a comparison though. Your point about the lack of scary music could be a factor to look for here. We can't simply say the mood though, we need to look at specific factors that generate it.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:21 PM
1

I'm not sarcastic, this never happened How can you know bro? everyone who posts bullshit like this is a sad person who needs to compensate for their own failings by showing how everyone not them is a hysterical jerk That's one possibility but I question your 'everyone' assumption. Surely there are other factors which could motivate someone to concoct stories. Like for example, trolling, or for the sake of good argument. Even if your cognitive distortion were accurate, more 'failings' exist than …
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:19 PM
1

I'd like a link to the actual study rather than one article linking to the next. Me too, ant the first step to finding such a thing is getting more specific info, which is why I provided the year/name (although I see another reply already did so) so someone could run with that ball.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:18 PM
1

I agree with you but I'm just confused by what you meant by harder. In the general 'let's all work harder' sense? Or in the "we need to work harder to catch up with the Swedes" sense?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:17 PM
1

Or I might be thinking of John Wayne.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:16 PM
1

lol no, that place isn't very free, can't get even well defined shit in, fuck that place
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:16 PM
1

Prison rape culture exists outside of prison as well, we regularly reinforce how hilarious prison rape must be. We laugh about it being some kind of system of justice when the "good" criminals like murderers punish the "bad" criminals like alleged rapists.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 04:01 PM
1

Why does Spearhead omit an I in the URL?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 04:00 PM
1

its just we gotta work harder to get these people off the streets. Harder than whom? Are our rapists harder to catch due to the higher level of education? Doesn't the education of victims and prosecutors balance it out?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:59 PM
0

Oh c'mon folks we didn't really need a /s here do we?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:59 PM
1

want to pass a law that would force men to pee sitting down and remove urinals. I can believe urinal removal but I'm skeptical of the 'force sitting' thing. You're not implying that being restricted to a toilet forces one to sit are you? Source? When you say the 'country' wants to pass laws, don't you mean particular factions within it?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:48 PM
1

Swedish mothers can be pretty misandric... http://www.japanator.com/swedish-manga-translator-fined-for-lolicon-photos-15878.phtml
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:47 PM
1

The country’s Crime Prevention Council reported .. four times more likely that the rapist is born abroad than native born. Another study reported that 85 percent of the Swedish rapes were by foreign-born persons opinionpieces trying to construct a rape-threat narrative against muslims they don't provide a source for their claims BeforeItsNews lists this LibertarianRepublic article as source, which in turn cites this NewsMax article by JamesWalsh who says similar: The council also found that it i…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:40 PM
1

I question the legitimacy of the criticism of comparison coming from Canada though, which is also tilted towards feminism. Pot/kettle situation.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:33 PM
0

What does that have to do with modern day feminism? Or modern-day Swedes
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:32 PM
1

Same here.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:31 PM
1

Didn't vikings occasionally pillage innocent villagers and kidnap their women to rape them. Should we care what ancestors would think, and if they would roll, simply for merit of their ancestry? I might care what Beowulf would think (were he real) but not necessarily all Vikings.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:30 PM
2

Is baby-naming really a platform of 'freedom of speech' though? We're not talking about what names an adult can choose for themselves, but rather, what names a guardian can choose on behalf of a non-consenting child. Restricting that kind of seems to be similar on how we forbid parents from making porn of their kids, because even though porn as a broad issue is 'free speech', they are not adults and this is not their decision but they do have to live with the ramifications. So long as we're stop…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:28 PM
3

Picard did it under a minute, Hitchens took over 20.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:24 PM
1

But if you bring them over, they probably will be, and in unknown ways. What is it they say about "the devil you know" ?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:22 PM
0

I'm all for 'insufferable' but I wish we could use something other than 'cunt'. It's too generalized a sexist put-down. If a specific thing makes a woman a "cunt" in our eyes, I think that specific thing could be used to generate a more descriptive noun. If different things make a woman a "cunt", what is the common trait these different things have? Whatever it is, if we identify it, we can generate a name.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:21 PM
1

Not everyone wants to read a DM article on the off-chance it might cite a study. It's still more helpful to link to it directly, still more of a reliable source. Another prob is a lot of peer reviewed papers only have excerpts :( Anyway I don't see where direct references are made, maybe I'm overlooking it. I see a reference to a "Joan Chiao" and "Northwestern University". Where is the additional info cited? Where is the title and the date of this study? I'm not seeing it.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:20 PM
2

Are we talking genetic propensity? Or taught? Both?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:09 PM
1

these people say they want equal rights! No, they want equal outcomes Pretty sure nonplussed was talking about what people say they want, not what they want.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:07 PM
2

"You know..."he told me. "You're part of the of the war on women." Surely his statement was a couple words more concise :) He kind of raged out and started saying "rape culture" over and over again Do you remember anything more specific than that? It's not realistic that someone would literally only say that, so it sounds like you were tuning him out a little when hearing an annoying catch phrase. how did Swedes become such brainwashed feminist zombies? I think you're making this a nationalistic…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:02 PM
2

It clearly is different in some capacity in that people are reacting to it differently. The questions to ask are: is it being portrayed differently? is it being interpreted differently? I take it Kuonji's "it's different" response is like moral rationalization, as in "it's okay if woman does X" type different. But we should try and find an opposite example here, and look at specific differences.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:57 PM
1

she is portrayed as being a sexy creature deserving of attraction. If the situation was reversed and a man was using a woman for oral sex for 6 months while being generally controlling of her it goes without saying that he would be portrayed as an abusive and terrible person How do we evaluate how someone is being portrayed? I'm trying to figure this out neutrally here. It is possible for example for people to view this and not view her as sexy or deserving of attraction. It's similarly possible…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:55 PM
1

There is that whole issue of 4 female prison guards becoming pregnant by a male inmate though.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:34 PM
1

If we start at zero assumptions than OP first needs to prove his/her existence. That's not possible, we just assume it What's the alternative, thinking OP is a robot trying the Turing test? Even if it was, I don't really care, it's the argument that matters not if the poster is a dog. I do not value someone that would bully me through accusations of sexism any more than a 'friend' that would threaten physical violence. I think I could still value such people, although I could see how such action…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:33 PM
1

I know me too, it makes it very efficient. It sounds a lot like grunt.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:29 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean here, that I am implying ebonics are harder to unlearn than hair is to cut?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:28 PM
1

you don't go around accusing everyone of being a thief unless you can back it up. True, but I'm talking about thinking, not accusing. Regardless of potential, they are all innocent of theft unless you have evidence saying otherwise. No, they aren't. A criminal is guilty in truth prior to them being guilty in law. Criminals who aren't successfully convicted are still guilty. Innocents who are convicted is still innocent. We can recognize due process of law while still allowing our minds to act in…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:27 PM
1

Erotica?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:26 PM
1

She is logically correct. You are not. You do not understand what CAUSE and EFFECT entail. You have so far made pointless comments. Saying X is right Y is wrong Y doesn't understand isn't actually addressing Y's posts or contradicting their arguments. Fuck off with the 'nuh-huh!'s and get to the points already. For something to have a cause and effect link, THE CAUSE MUST PRODUCE THE EFFECT. Only in single-cause effects. Many effects are produced by multifaceted causes. Vinegar is a cause of foa…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:26 PM
1

I think the concept of men talking to men about rape is important, but I don't have a model for how that should look. Know any good resources/articles/examples? What is important to you, talking to men about rape, or talking to people about rape?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:10 PM
0

When a minor is unable to engage in an action, it is the parents' responsibility to act on their behalf and in their best interests. My point is that it should be the state's responsibility to press rape charges, or the individual's, not the parents. unlike the government, parents actually know their kid personally. They know if the kid is mature and responsible enough to consent to sex That's a load of shit. Plenty of parents can be in denial well into adulthood that their children are ready fo…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:10 PM
1

by education, I meant education on why it's probably not a good idea So we expect someone to be enhanced enough to understand risks but not enhanced enough to manage them? I think that is a little bit much. What responsibilities are we talking about here that these two couldn't have managed? Certainly pregnancy wasn't one of them. if you don't want to promote it, and still want to educate on it, then you almost have to denounce it. Presenting things realistically and factually should lead to peo…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:06 PM
1

Philosophies calling sex with children rape still hinge upon how adulthood is established. In this case if one is considered adult and the other considered child. We have some parties calling them both children and some parties calling them both adults. There is recognition of a level of arbitrariness here. If you've read some of the texts from the minor (present in the recent court order) you get a strong inclination of her being an active consenting participant.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:02 PM
1

Reversible sterilization would be better though it is worth noting that if people were confined in a way they couldn't impregnate others it wouldn't be necessary, so that's a choice to keep open.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:00 PM
1

You're using a completely different example from the line of reasoning Whoopi did, don't strawman the Cheshire Cat please.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:00 PM
1

Even if I accept that many/most male feminists apologize for their sexuality, I am not sure I agree that this is always the case here. To use an extreme example, if a man's sexuality was extreme masochism where he enjoys being berated and stepped on by women, would this conflict with feminism at all? Would he have something to apologize for? I think that serves to show that whether or not it is of a status that makes apologies wanted depends on individual variations. What form of sexuality do yo…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:59 PM
1

The alcohol thing is a different issue from the sleep thing, though I agree with your observation about their debate tactics.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:57 PM
1

Figured I'd just collectively respond to both of you to save space since I assume he would read your reply to him.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:56 PM
2

I agree, but I found my example to be one a larger portion of people would accept in contradicting the statement. Baby steps.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:55 PM
1

Difference doesn't determine rape, it only determines when the law makes exceptions to it's arbitrary AoC stuff.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:54 PM
-1

I don't see how cattle-herders would be cowardly. Back in the day they had to defend from people who tried to steal cattle. I could've sworn I watched a Clint Eastwood flick about that.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:53 PM
2

found guilty in 2008 of molesting his granddaughter and two of her friends after... a serial number on the back of a photograph that refuted a key portion of the prosecution’s case. accused of molesting his granddaughter when she was 7 years old, along with four of her friends, each of whom was younger than 10 when the abuse was said to have begun. According to the prosecution, the abuse began in 1998 Green’s granddaughter testified that she herself had not been abused — and, in fact, had not kn…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:52 PM
2

Subtle how they word the poster neutrally enough but distribute it unevenly. Although I'd like to think that this sign might be on the outside of the men's door (that's not clear due to the zoom) so that women will see it before walking into the men's room to harass us. I was watching Bad Teacher earlier this week and a lady teacher did that, and the Principal and his bro could not poop in peace.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:36 PM
15

How does one get the surname Coward?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:35 PM
1

I just watched the 2008 film Gigantic last night and am kind of hip on the idea of women asking us out. If only they could all be manic pixie dream girls.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:44 PM
1

Beauty is subjective folks. A lot of us men can and would find the girl on the left attractive. I do. A lot more attractive than the psychopath on the right.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:43 PM
3

I think you're misrepresenting the point. You appear to be phrasing it as if the person is doing ALL of the things. While that may be what is depicted by showing all things simultaneously, the labelling on the picture asks individual questions for each point and says No repeatedly. If it were 'A and B and C' as conditions, only 1 No would be required for that simultaneous state. It is instead A or B or C.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:41 PM
4

Nothing is being taken to any extremes here. Neuro is simply pointing out that it is false to assume someone must be interested in socializing by being in a public place, which is what you implied by your question. Your "by that logic" response is arguing a strawman here. Neuro did not say we should not socialize with people in public in case they might not want to socialize, which is what you seem to be trying to imply here.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:39 PM
2

an overweight unattractive woman I found her kind of attractive in the left pic, until she turned to face the camera. Maybe it was that hot focused working look, as opposed to the cartoonish maniacal grin devoid of thought she had in the right one. Did anyone else notice that her glasses changed from circular in the left to pointy half-glasses in the right? Is that some reference I'm just not getting, like with us and fedoras?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:36 PM
3

Not necessarily, a male feminist might try the whole "hey I like feminism can I sit with you?" bit.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:34 PM
2

Nobody's forced to oppose gender inequality. We opt to, with great courage.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:34 PM
1

I'm confused about the lingo. Presumably dudes means all guys... so 'jerks' would be I guess females who are jerks? Is the implication that only some females are jerks, but all guys are jerks? Or that only a jerk woman would engage in behaviour and that guys who do it are just being guys, and not jerks? Do women never strike up conversations in coffee shops with other women? I don't see why any of these cues should mean you can't start up conversation with someone. Not that I would.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:32 PM
1

This was not a rape rape.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:37 PM
2

Only a statutory rapist, clearly not a "rape rape"ist.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:37 PM
1

True, but this is an action that neither her or your brother should have been held accountable for.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:36 PM
1

No victim or rapist was established here, philosophically speaking.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:36 PM
1

it is still a small difference -- from the perspective of a man in his forties these are both kids We shouldn't be making law judgements on the basis of relative perspectives. We should do it on the basis of actual mental capacities and knowledge to deal with the consequences of activities.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:35 PM
1

Predatory? MAYBE... This is a maybe that applies to ALL relationships, of course. We shouldn't talk about "maybe this is a predatory relationship" as if it's the exclusive realm of age-difference relationships. the possibility is definitely there. As it is everywhere. I don't think the solution to this needs to have anything to do with the criminal justice system... ESPECIALLY if the "victim" was totally for it, and isn't experiencing any negative impacts whatsoever. I mean, as much as I do thin…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:32 PM
1

an 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old is predatory and gross. Bullshit assumption on your part. First, "gross"? What's next, "creepy"? Secondly, predation is not inherent, it has to be evidenced, and it's possible for a 14 year old to pursue and initiate a relationship with an 18 year old. Being pursued and reciprocating is not predatory, and since that can happen, assumptions about inherent predation are wrong.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:31 PM
1

There ought to be a sliding scale of penalties depending on the age difference No, there shouldn't. Sliding penalties are for when there is variable damage. This is not a case of damage being evaluated, but penalizing someone for being with a partner denied legal agency. Whether the 14 year old lesbian's partner is 18 or 28 shouldn't make a shit of difference. Tongues don't grow fucking spikes if your cunnilingus giver ages a decade.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:29 PM
1

3.5 years is not a 4 year difference.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:27 PM
2

Kaitlyn knew what she was doing was wrong and was concerned about getting in trouble These are two separate ideas. Being concerned about getting in trouble for what OTHERS consider wrong does NOT mean Kaitlyn "knew" she was doing something wrong. To know something is wrong, it has to be wrong, and this was illegal, not wrong. the difference between 14 and 18 is pretty big... a 14 year old isn't far from being a child, has only begun to learn about having relationships, is still very reliant on p…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:26 PM
-1

the parents should get as much say over if someone should have sex as they should over an abortion, which by the time someone in a teenager means basically none They should NEVER get a say over that. Abortions should be forced on all minors until they are legal adults who actually have the capacity to give informed consent to becoming a parent. Parenthood is a bigger choice to make than sex. We shouldn't be allowing kids to carry pregnancies to term if we aren't allowing them to fuck.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:22 PM
1

The parents of the younger girl are the ones pressing charges, and they have the legal right to do so. The younger girl says she is not a victim. I don't think that should be their right. It should not be up to parents what is or isn't rape. There should be only 2 situations: a person has the agency to make their own choices they don't, and the government prosecutes on their behalf Parents shouldn't come anywhere into that. Otherwise you could have parents turning away if they approve of a rapis…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:21 PM
2

we need a rolling penalty, so that even if 14/18 is illegal, it is a slap on the wrist and some community service. 14/20 is a harder slap. 14/30 is prison and sex offender registry. That isn't right, why should we have rolling penalties? Either a party is empowered to consent to sex or they aren't. This bullshit feeds into the idea that it's somehow more 'harmful' to fuck an older person, and it isn't.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:20 PM
4

For fuck's sake guys a 14 year old is not a "little kid". People really are reaching if "kid" isn't enough and they need to affix an adjective to dramaticize. Next up you'll be labelling the younger teen lesbian a 'baby' like the Feminist ragers would if it was a man. Vagina Monologues was a 13 year old, equally not a little kid.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:19 PM
1

Good, she should only be getting (at most) a slap over the wrist for that consensual romance. Now, instead of harping on how we should lock her up for decades over this shit, let's instead use her as an example to call for lighter sentencing of men in similar situations.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:17 PM
5

The first isn't exactly right though. Being asleep isn't always a no, it can be a continued yes if the person agreed with you beforehand "you can fuck me while I'm asleep".
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:06 PM
2

Agreed, and BTW delete your double-post below =/
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:05 PM
30

Black man 1: "I know when an old lady is asleep, I shouldn't stab her and take her wallet. Do you?" Black man 2: "I'm the kind of brother who doesn't sodomize my friends when they're drunk. Are you?"
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:04 PM
5

You're arguing a strawman here by introducing 'all'. The OP title "making men look like rapists" isn't necessarily saying all, but rather describing how rapist is a trait being associated with men. It also isn't saying we're capable of making caring or reasonable decisions, because if we were, we wouldn't need such posters to tell us to do that. These posters are showing KEWL badarses to attempt to shame us. It's like "hey look at these badasses and their opinions, you must be some kind of homos…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:02 PM
1

It's hard to make a point without analogizing to other ways. For example what if we had 2 black men on these vans and it said "I know raping white women is bad, do you?" This would clearly be seen as racist. These vans are sexist in that same capacity. So we could make that clear with adequate analogies and then identifying the common negative traits both have.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:59 PM
2

Even if they used your picture I'm doubtful these messages would qualify as defamation (you'd have to demonstrate how "asleep is a no" or "too drunk is no" harms your character), it'd be more along the lines of unauthorized use of semblance.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:58 PM
4

I considered suggesting defacing those vans (the one on the right could have text painted over blue to make it say "I have sex with a girl when she's drunk" for example) but since they are police vans that's not a smart idea. Sucks that police are complicit in spreading this misandric bullshit though.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:57 PM
1

Makes me wonder if there is a genetic component to that. Sterilization could probably be done in conjunction with a LOT of crimes... but I do worry about the 'permanent' part since there are cases of convicting innocent people. Imagine how much it would suck if a man got sterilized over a rape conviction and was later exonerated, or if a woman got sterilized over a false rape accusation that later was found to be true?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:55 PM
1

Actually we tend to vary between all 3 steps. We've gone as far as 4 in some cases and many are still stuck on (or regress to) 1.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:53 PM
1

Coldbeam this is not about the divide between sex-negative and sex-positive. It's about the divide between 'we accept sex with men' and everyone else. There are plenty of sex-positive lesbian feminists, after all, who can still take a hostile stance to women who consent to sex with men, which as we have heard from some Feminists, must always be rape.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:52 PM
1

Devaluation of the cow who gives free milk is expected and a used up jaded partner is hardly a prize. That's a valid consideration for those who consider women prizes, I suppose. A bit of a controversial objectifying stance to take though. I'm not actually opposed to breaking people down into attributes we value them by, but when we talk about sex as 'free milk', that's a major consideration only if the sexual exclusivity is what we prize in a woman we marry. Awesome as sex is, many of us want t…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:50 PM
1

there is a reason large amount of indiscriminate sex is shameful. Why would the 'large amount' matter? The key thing is lack of discrimination. Taking reckless indiscriminate actions is frightening and can harm people by spreading STDs, or put people at risk with dangerous partners. I think the problem with talking about which shame related to this is just though is that there aren't clear definitions about what 'indiscriminate' is. Really EVERYONE uses discrimination (even the less discriminate…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:42 PM
3

others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgement I'm interested in specific cases, if Rumney can provide any. He may be falsely assuming that it is 100% detached judgment when in realtiy police may have been processing evidence. Rumney is assuming he can read police officer's minds here, which is utter bullshit. It's not for him to declare what unseen thought processes 'entirely' compose the reasoning behind a decision.…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:40 PM
2

A bit vague. How about: accusations resulting in conviction accusations not resulting in conviction due to lack of evidence accusations not resulting in conviction with proven deception Am I missing any? We could complicate it further by criteria like 'charges pressed' or 'goes to trial' based on what police will file reports on and what cases prosecutors will take up.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:35 PM
2

I am beginning to think perhaps the amount of false rape accusations are under-reported not so much due to lack of police awareness (which is the case with rape under-reporting, victims may not go to police at all to make them aware) but rather because of police simply not letting specious cases go forward to trial. While that's all well and good in the short-term for saving tax-payer dollars, I worry about the longterm effects of not punishing people who make false accusations for lying. It all…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:31 PM
1

that conditioning is that languages evolve I'm not sure what this means. I'd normally argue the same, "let's stick to the original meaning" but here it feels like a good reason to let the word change. What is the reason you're referring to here? We have plenty of words meaning erotic or sex and we don't need to misuse a root term meant to describe prostitution to make new words.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:52 PM
1

why didn't they just block out incorrect grammar when they were babies learning language! /s This is plausible if we took babies away from parents who don't provide suitable rearing environments. Do I smell a false equivalence? Nope, you should probably avoid accusations of equivocating unless people are using terms like equal or same.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:49 PM
1

your logic was flawed. It's up to you to establish that, you did not do so effectively enough to convince me. Perhaps try rephrasing your criticism and you might get through to my addled mind. I'm arguing that you can't prove that "style of dress and sexual assault have a cause-effect link". Your argument is that they do. I suspect they do, just like I suspect any myriad of things contributes to a multifaceted pool of causes. Height, for example. If you refuse to believe that physical characteri…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:48 PM
1

I assume OP doesn't have a history of sexist comments, lives in a culture roughly comparable to mine, isn't lying, is human, exists, and a plethora more. Why do that? Is it necessary for some reason? If someone accuses me of being sexist they'd have to be very central to my life for me to endure what I feel to be a very serious attack on my character. OP does not make this friend sound that important. OP made them sound important to me, talked about having a long history of confidence and conver…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:39 PM
1

There shouldn't be limbo here. Person B is innocent according to most forms of logic. No, there SHOULD be a limbo, because by the same form of logic, person A is also innocent of lying. Yet there's a contradiction. Legally we treat both as innocent but in our minds our judgment is in limbo due to lack of information. To look at another example: we know lots of theft goes unreported or unpunished, does that mean I should assume people aren't thieves until I see evidence? No, instead I assume ever…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:38 PM
1

It only feels wrong because of how we've been conditioned. It should be porn even if we take a photograph of a prostitute being arrested by police, even if she's not fucking at all. Nude modelling itself isn't selling sexual intercourse so that would not qualify harlotry.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:35 PM
1

I think the problem is we're looking for the wrong 'suspicious' criteria. Dumbing it down to appearances (gender, race) is ignoring a lot of other subtler criteria about people. Like where they are, what they're doing, what they say, etc.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:33 PM
1

I did look at ballgame's post and confirm it was about Elinder in another reply. I ended up reading the whole thing, including all the replies. I just did it after making the initial reply.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:32 PM
1

Is, not will be. The lack of it is its own reward. Less distracting.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:31 PM
3

I'm sure there have been at least some isolated societies where they've been systemically oppressed, and members of EVERY group have been situationally oppressed at some given time. And we don't need to cunt to make a point.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 03:00 PM
1

I find the title a bit misleading, we should note the '2' in the URL. http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/shame-what-is-it-good-for redirects to http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/shame-what-is-it-good-for/ a video released August 4, prior to this August 14 article sharing the title.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 02:49 PM
0

That does sound pretty suspicious. But perhaps it was slang meaning she wanted to defeat in Super Smash Bros Brawl via distracting him via pantsing in an asexual manner.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:03 PM
2

Insurance companies accepting sexism is part of their private business. It's not part of government-allocated funds. I also don't accept it because we don't allow companies to be sexist in other respects. If insurance companies can charge men higher rates, then companies should be able to exclude women from leadership positions. Either sexism in business is acceptable, or it isn't.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:02 PM
1

The police stopping you to ask who you are and what are you doing does not equal "holding you accountable for the actions of those sharing a trait". They are not holding you accountable for anything. Well stopping me would inconvenience my day, and perhaps lead them to shoot me or take a side against me based on trend-supported assumptions, in interpersonal conflict. If many members of a specific group commit some crime, other members of the same group should speak up against it and/or do someth…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:01 PM
1

Legal position, yes. But in terms of our judgement it's limbo. I agree with you that we should avoid treating people innocent (under law) as guilty based on hunches or media biases... but not that we should treat them innocent either. There's always that bit of limbo involved whenever there's interpersonal conflict. It's kinda unavoidable. It's like if person A accuses person B of rape. Excluding mixups, we either have a liar or a rapist on our hands. So rather than treating both as innocent, I'…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:59 PM
1

Psychology also seems convoluted and elaborate. How does elaborate not seem to fit the natural world? The natural world isn't elaborate?
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:56 PM
1

That's dumb though, we gotta respect etymology, porne means harlots, so should only be people who got paid. We shouldn't be calling all sex harlotry, which we do be using porn that way.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:55 PM
1

they're making the very strong claim that I am, at the core of my being, sexist so they can advance a political agenda You're dropping into the CD of mind-reading here. Making a claim you think is strong, sure, but you don't know why they're making it. To advance a political agenda is an assumption being made here. it's possible we could talk through our disagreement but they're choosing not to. I'm not particularly concerned as to why. You mention not being concerned, and mentioned moving on, i…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:54 PM
1

Fine. You think every conclusion has statistics behind it? Some things are common sense and we don't bother with it. People judge others based on appearances, and judgement like that is part of how rapists would select victims. All I'm arguing is that clothing factors into victim selection, NOT which form of clothing does. It's just one of a myriad of factors of appearance that would weigh into their evaluation process.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:49 PM
1

You're stereotyping both though, because sometimes cues can be subtle. People rarely come out and say 'I'm going to rape you', and I expect people who attack gays/blacks are probably a little subtle about that too except when along amongst themselves. In either case, people have to project scenarios from smaller potential-cues (which might end up being nothing). What you call delusional thinking may be, if it's on bad pretenses, but other times it's just a wrong guess.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:47 PM
1

As for language, what we think of as inner city black dialect is a disadvantage, and so many blacks need to change their language to do business. Oh my god. Nobody forces them to talk that way, fuck. Can we focus on real problems like circumcision and not how hard it is to drop ebonics? Next we complain about how hard it is to take our piercings or cut your hair.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:45 PM
1

Oh man. Imagination: It's like objective reality, except it's completely in your head. So congratulations, you've admitted you have no objective evidence to back up your claim. You're just imagining how things happen, and believing that's reality. You need to look up "delusional". Resorting to imagination when we lack data is not delusion so long as you think logically. I view my proposed scenarios as rational. I hope you're not arguing that because I don't happen to have any data memorized that…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:44 PM
1

Seems to be a broad view of 'support'. Unless I'm actively hiring men to go rape women I don't much like being called a supporter of it. People need to learn what support actually means. We can call people perhaps "rape-apathetic" or "rape-allowers" or "rape-tolerators" since those are broader terms and could define inactivity, but to me 'support' is definitely taking an active role and should not be applied to inaction. Every time a man tells a rape joke, he is participating in and adding to a …
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:34 PM
1

You can't 'prove' something like this by examining numbers. You have to examine the written policies at the time. and the unwritten ones.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:31 PM
1

I don't know enough about this DTA concept yet so I'm not sure if this is right or not, but I do recognize some rephrasing could be valuable. I was thinking something like moving goalposts...
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:31 PM
1

I'd be interested in seeing a retelling of the story, maybe "Lady of the Flies" where all the lost kids are girls.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 05:00 PM
1

It might be better to just link to the dates: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2012/04/18/ http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2012/04/19/ Reason being there are 2 versions of them in terms of comments that can be read, the No Hostility and Regular Parallel.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:56 PM
0

Any Vatican boats sink lately?
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:40 PM
1

they cherry picked 18 shipwrecks out of over a hundred that they looked into I missed that detail, interesting... How they conclude it was "only an advantage on TWO ships" while excluding...72 other ships? from analysis is confusing. the "women and children first" order was given for only five times out of 18 sinkings. Discovery.com says this. I assume "18" refers to the 18 which he chose to study, so it may have been a lot more in the 72 you're saying were not study. Where do you get the '90 or…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:40 PM
6

A couple involve situations where the first lifeboat was overloaded with women and children and sank or was launched incorrectly. This is a good observation and we should be adjusting the statistics to except this since this was clearly them being prioritized and not neglected. 19th century men were much better at swimming and breaking down doors than 19th century women and children. If you look at where the female casualties come from in their selection of wrecks, a lot of them involve situatio…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:38 PM
1

This rebuttal references an April 15 ManBoobz article about "a new Swedish study." which was triggered by An April 13 2012 Discovery.com article What confuses me is both cite "a study" in April even though it was incomplete until May and unpublished until June, so they may have half-finished information, unlike Slate which rightly waited until it was complete to review it. Mikael Elinder is from the Uppsala University in Sweden so this may be referring to him, although this means that ManBoobz w…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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