$MONEY$ antifeminism I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex whores

Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit

Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.

414 replies on “Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit”

Much I’m glad there’s no longer a free pass to smoke wherever you feel like in the U.S., I think we’re taking things a little too far, personally. Banning smoking in open-air places like public parks is kinda ridiculous to me. Ditto the social stigma against smokers, and the excessive taxation of tobacco products.

An interesting non-self-righteous take on an “I don’t take drugs” song, but combined with the stalkerish-proto-nice-guy-who’s-also-somehow-a-sympathetic-character thing the Modern Lovers do so well:

(“I’m Straight” – The Modern Lovers)

An interesting I-don’t-want-to-fuck-around song that isn’t self-righteous with a dash of the same:

(“Someone I Care About” – The Modern Lovers)

So there are precedents, I guess. Precedents from pretty close to where all the straight-edge stuff started, too.


I know a lot of people love soap and stuff, but it’s always seemed a bit of a passive-aggressive gift to me. “Here, you seem the sort of person who might need some soap!”


I’m with you entirely there. I don’t even smoke (tobacco) and I’m already annoyed that the university I’m going to soon has just adopted a smoke-free campus policy.

Is there a smoking ban in pubs/bars/nightclubs in the USA all-over or by state or by county or what? I don’t know what to think about that sort of thing.

The problem with smoking outside is not the smoke, its the mess from the butts and the risk of fire, so banning it seems a bit over-the-top.

I reckon you should be allowed to smoke the the psych hospital lock-up. It’s stressful enough being sick and locked up where you can’t go outside, never mind having to give up the smokes as well.

I’m all for smoking being banned in enclosed spaces like bars, not only because it makes things unpleasant even for some smokers, but because it’s a health risk for the people who have to work in those spaces. I don’t see any reason why it should be banned outdoors, though, and creating a teeny little smoking area outside buildings seems a bit too remniscent of putting people in the stocks so those passing by can pelt them with tomatoes.


It’s happening at the state and local level, mostly, or it’s a matter of individual institutions adopting anti-smoking policy. Seems to happening in more and more places, though.

I’m all for smoking being banned in enclosed spaces like bars, not only because it makes things unpleasant even for some smokers, but because it’s a health risk for the people who have to work in those spaces.

Well, to be fair, the main reason I’m against it is that I never got to experience the “smoky bar” thing I’d been looking forward to all my childhood. That is not really an excellent argument against those sorts of bans.

Many local bars and restaurants around here have outdoor smoking areas. Some of them even have heat lamps for the winter. So at least they’re somewhat considerate.

Brandon: If I were just disagreeing for the sake of form, I’d say something like, “dude, that’s wrong, you don’t understand how it is… see women like men who can light their own farts.”

When you pointed out this was a questionable claim, with no proof, I’d say, “It true, and you won’t admit it because it was me who said it, but if you go look it up you’ll have to admit I’m right.”

But that’s not what I did. I actually argued with you. Pointed out your logical failures. Tried to keep you arguing the same thing (that women find money attractive, and a guys looks/personality are not all that important).

You said it was up to me to find studies that supported you.

So you were being an asshole.

Even when I disagree I don’t say, “this is the way it is”. You can call me a liar all you like, but if you can find a credible study (and I showed you what I’m looking for, it’s not like I’m stacking the deck), I’ll have to reconsider.

But you’d rather think I’m dishonest than try to show me up… ok. But that’s killing the chance you have to make a case to other people. Not my problem. I didn’t pull an assertion out of my ass and try too tell people it was true.

Even in places where smoking is banned in bars there are usually a few that totally ignore the ban, and since there are only a few of them they tend to be extra smoky. I can think of 2 here in San Francisco that could satisfy anyone’s smoky bar cravings.

What I kind of love about this city is that post-ban most bars do actually follow the rules, but only for tobacco, so there are several where you can sit out on the patio smoking weed and no one cares, but if anyone lights up a cigarette on the pavement outside everyone will scowl at them. Hippie city of mine, you are hilarious.

The issue with smoking bans is that if you do not have them, you de facto ban plenty of people from those spaces. People who are allergic to cigarette smoke, people with lung issues, small children,(many) pregnant people, people with other health conditions that are aggravated by cigarette smoke. If I spend two hours in a ventilated room with smokers, my heartbeat will race dangerously and I will spend days (at best) afterwards coughing and sick. When I lived with a smoker (my mother’s boyfriend…), even trying to avoid the smoke, I ended up being seriously sick rather often. I once had a sinus infection for an entire month and it got so bad it interfered with my ability to eat. Second hand smoke does affect others, and you can’t say that no one’s interests and ability to use public spaces are served by smoking bans. Does the right of a smoker to smoke in public spaces trump the right of an person with asthma, for example, to use those spaces?

Banning smoking in open-air places like public parks is kinda ridiculous to me.

Not really-it is a fire hazard in areas like the Southwest and California. And a huge cost when that sort of thing happens in lives, homes, money, and time.

I just don’t see the need to go hunting around on the internet for links to studies to prove my point to you.

Your point is that you are a lazy unintellectual dullard? Now come on, we knew that already!

Your other point, that young ladies are attractive to men at any age only would possibly be true if you only said “most guys walking down the street and see a 19 year old will think she is attractive.” We all said “here are all the problems with just that scenario and it would not hold up for anything beyond a simple glance. If it did hold up which it would not for the aforementioned reasons”

So the idea that women, to bring it back to the original post, who are over the age of 21 are jealous of the idea of women who are 18 and doing sex work because they are not as attractive and that is what men want-really young attractive women…falls apart under even the most cursory logical thought.

A portion of the male population may in fact like young ladies who have a certain type of looks for a simple glance or a one night stand or even for a long term relationship-but you cannot prove even just the simple glance and get petulant when we call you on it.

Also, does Ashley snore or something? Most people like to be with their partners for more than just a few minutes of badly done sex. *apologizes to everyone for making Brandon now think he has to defend his ability to engage in any kind of sexual activity as well as he thinks he debates*

Elizabeth! Now he’s going to give us another round of Brandon’s Super Racy Exploits including, omg, sex while standing up. Stop encouraging him!

I do like how he made a point of saying she had her own place and left after sex, oh, hell, that he’s so insecure he had to bring up getting laid in the first place.

Not Super Racy Sexploits! Sex against the wall! With the lights on!

One of the big problems I see with smoking outdoors is the people that just toss their cigarette butts on the floor like it’s no big deal, so there are always cigarette butts just lying around on the streets and some people don’t even bother putting them out.

Even people who normally wouldn’t litter do that. It’s like it doesn’t register as littering to them.

I don’t want to ban open air smoking, but people could at least use pocket ashtrays or something.

I still do not see how Ashley and having had sex is relevant to this conversation.

I am wondering what will happen to Ashley in Brandon World when she hits 26?

If she is real, that is.

Since “Ashley” came to Manboobz, I slipped on the side of the ashgnostic (do I say that right?) And imaginary girlfriends don’t have to age!

But I always respect other religions and philosophies. So if she is flesh and bones, the easy solution is to dump her, then try to get a younger one.

What I kind of love about this city is that post-ban most bars do actually follow the rules, but only for tobacco, so there are several where you can sit out on the patio smoking weed and no one cares, but if anyone lights up a cigarette on the pavement outside everyone will scowl at them. Hippie city of mine, you are hilarious.

Oh God.

I am wondering what will happen to Ashley in Brandon World when she hits 26?

She will be long gone by then. And replaced with an even younger robot.

@Pecunium: See, that is where it all went to shit. I was arguing that the majority of men value youth when it comes to being attracted to women. You seem to take that as “women don’t value a man’s looks”, which was NOT my argument to begin with. You are also psychologically splitting. Seeing looks and money as mutually exclusive. Did it not occur to you that women can value both looks and money?

The whole money bit was just a side note. My main argument is still the majority of men value youth.

Sidenote: The same could be said of weight as well. Sure, some men will find chubby, fat and obese women attractive. However, the majority of men do not subscribe to that thinking.

@Hellkell: Talking about sex and saying you have it does not make one insecure. Sex is a part of life and people talk about it. Whoopty friggin doo. It isn’t that big of a deal.

@Kyrie: Ashley no longer posts here because she says most people here are too hostile.

And once again, a claim is made with nothing to back it up. That a majority of men value youth yet nothing to show where this idea came from. Because BRANDON.

Also, we were not hostile to Ashley, we just think she was your sock puppet because most of us do not believe she exists and she talks just like you so you know, not like this opinion was formed in the vacuum of your head.

Ashley doesn’t post here because you can’t sockpuppet to save your life, and she’s just as boring as you, Mr. IT Wizard.

You’re right, sex is a part of life, but most of us bring it where applicable, not a totally unrelated discussion. Makes you look desperate. Makes Ashley look faker. Makes you look like a crap lay.

Keep fucking that chicken!


I have a question, actually, since I haven’t actually seen this conversation from start to finish…

Let’s say that “the majority of men value youth,” for the sake of argument, keeping in mind that “majority” can mean anything from 50.1% to 100%. Where do you go from there, exactly?

@Kirby: Brandon doesn’t go anywhere, with anything. He just keeps repeating what he himself thinks/know/is, without using “I” anymore (BECAUSE DAVID PWNED HIM), but generalizing it to “most men will…” blah blah blah blah. He’s not here to mock misogyny. He’s not here to persuade us of anything–he says so right up there! He’s not here (as far as I can tell) because he enjoys what David posts, or enjoys what the rest of this very eclectic group likes to talk about when not mocking misogyny, so…….he’s here because he’s bored????

And he’s boring.

And that is Brandon. There is nowhere to go because BRANDON.

I’ve decided to start announcing it on Manboobz every time I get laid. It’s just a part of life, folks, people talk about this stuff all the time! Why are y’all so uptight? I think I’ll do it Hasbro’s Clue style. It was the boyfriend, in the bed, with the rabbit vibrator!

When smoking was banned inside public places here a few years ago (6 or 7 maybe?) the people who were most concerned were bar owners, who believed it would drive away a significant portion of their business. It didn’t; many smokers still come and smoke outside even in the depths of winter, and — like DSC said — people who either didn’t like or couldn’t handle the cigarette smoke are much more likely to show up.

I do not think those guys just had sex. For some reason…maybe because they are fully dressed?

And here I thought you were supposed to have sex with both partners sharing the same clothing. The Snuggie Sutra lied to me.

Yeah, I totally get banning smoking for the sake of removing fire or health hazards. I just think saying someone can’t have a cigarette in the open air when they’re not standing anywhere near anybody, or if they’re in their own car that happens to parked at a hospital or a school is a little much.

Of course, I’m speaking from the perspective of never having had asthma or allergies, so maybe I’m just being ignorant, I don’t know. I’m glad people can’t smoke inside hospitals or restaurants or public schools or whatever. I just think we need a better compromise over the outdoors.

That being said, people who toss their cigarette butts on the ground piss me off too.

It’s hard–smoking is legal, and I know it’s an addiction (my mother had a terrible time trying to go off it for years-finally did the month before her bypass surgery–her lungs were fine, but nicotine can apparently clog arteries).

I grew up in a house during a time when most adults smoked.

But during the last twenty years or so, my allergies have increased–so much so that when I pass some of the smokers who are congregating outside the doorway (my office is the first on the right once you come in that side of the building), or when they come inside and pass me in the hallway, I can have a coughing fit just from that brief exposure. (And it’s not just smoke–pollens, dust, allergens–which in Texas seem to operate all year around, just different kinds–rageweed is especially prevalent) can set it off to, and that’s despite a maintenance dose of Zyrtec (daily).

Brandon: Where it went to shit was you saying men will take the younger woman, and women will take the richer man.

You argued that men will take the younger option when looking at different women (arguable) and women will take the richer man; they don’t care what age he is, and that his looks aren’t the thing they care about.

And you claimed this wasn’t about choosing a partner for a relationship, but purely how, “attractive” he was.

So the reason it went to shit is your argument was shit, and you first chose to share, then tried to defend, and now are trying to say it’s our job to prove you right.

But hey, if you like fucking chickens, it’s not my problem.

@Pecunium: Again, my argument isn’t “every single man will take the younger women over the older woman”.

It isn’t about starting a relationship. We are taking about attraction, not relationships. You know, that thing that people have PRIOR TO starting a relationship with someone. Attraction comes before relationships. Relationships are started when people are attracted to one another.

So? You’re still talking out of your ass Brandon. Incidentally, you also seem like you want to convince us. Funny that.
Attraction is a much more complicated thing, and has much more than two criteria.

My memory is fading. What’s the worst thing, the more hostile, that we told to “Ashley”?

Basically Brandon is arguing for the sake of arguing, as usual. Not worth engaging with unless it’s to mock.

Ok, back to the principle of, “Brandon’s Greatest Hits”, where (as we did with marriage) remind him of what he said, so he can pretend it means something else.

But everyone else (who may have lost track in the all the story switing and goalpost moving) can see just what he said that, as opposed to what he’s telling us he means now.

It’s that a lot of women equate more money with more safety and stability.

A lot, got that. A lot

In response to that being challenged we see, . But again, it is foolish to think that NO women value safety, security or stability from men or society at large.

So a lot equal some… a percentage which is described not with any sort of reference, just Brandon saying that we would be foolish to think no women value safety, etc., and that we have to assume they will look for a rich dude to provide it.

Again, this isn’t about looks or money overriding peoples ability to reason or critically think.

Ok… so let’s compare that to the set up; the things he said which he’s trying to backpedal away from now.

The point is that if you compare one woman at two different ages, more often than not, men will find the younger one more attractive. There are always exceptions that deviate from the standard (i.e men that like chubby and/or older women). With 3+ billion men on the planet, you can always find the exception to the rule.

So here we have it, according to Brandon “Young = sexy”, and it’s so strong a trait that one has to sift among more than billion men to find the exceptions.

Except, that it’s not. He admits later, when pressed, that it’s not that hard to find men who aren’t saying, “all I want it is a young hottie”. He’s changed his tune to “a bare majority”, maybe even just, “a lot” (we don’t know where he’s getting these numbers because he expects us to do the work for him, while he sits back and has a beer and watches the game. Brandon, the Manly, Freethinking Man, has spoken and it must be true, all we have to do is Google and it shall be made plain that Brandon knows all, and tells all.

Sort of like Chuck Norris.

So, what does this font of wisdom have to say about women’s attraction?

No where did I say all women were “shallow bints” that only cared about a man’s wallet.

Hrmn… let’s check the wayback machine:

The male corollary could be money (more specifically net worth). If you take the same man and show him with his net worth (say…$100K vs $1Million), more women would choose the higher net worth. Since it is the same man either way, the man with the higher net worth is just icing on the cake.

So women aren’t shallow. They just care about a man’s wallet more than anything else.

Let’s skip ahead and see the dancing as he’s called out on this one.

The two men aren’t the same…they have different net worth’s.

Didja see that? The two men start out the same. The money is just icing on the cake, but when he’s called out for saying women are shallow materialists the men magically become two different men, but; again, the only thing which has changed is the money: but he’s totally not calling women shallow, it’s just nature (like guys and youth… can’t be helped).

Never mind that the question is stupid… if you asked me would I like to be me and have more money, the answer is probably sure. If you asked my lovers if they would love differently if I had more/less money the answer would be no.

In all probability we’d not have met, if I had a lot more money than I have now, and almost certainly if I had much less. That’s because (as with age) people tend to travel in circles where the money is within an order of magnitude of themselves. I know a few millionaires, and a few people who are so poor they are barely keeping things together, but most of my friends are in the 40,000-150,000 income range).

Back the latest Dance Craze from Boston, Brandon’s Bob and Weave.

OMG, men have standards…holy shit! Cue feminist outrage because men have the audacity to see younger women as more attractive. It’s like feminists bitch about sexual objectification because men actually don’t see them in a sexual way. Jealously is a bitch, ain’t it ladies!

That’s the crux of it. Brandon doesn’t like it when certain types of stupidity are called out. He wants to argue that this whole thing (raising the age at which British women can enter a life of prostitution) is a blow against the rights of men, effected only because women are jealous of 18 year-olds getting paid for a quickie in the corner.

But he doesn’t look down on women, oh no. He just hates the nasty feminists because they are taking away his fun (or someone’s fun… unless Brandon has changed his mind and is planning to retire to Britain, instead of Thailand, this can’t affect him)

But this is his MO. Make an egregiously broad claim. Tapdance madly to try and convince people (who are quoting him) that he said something completely different, and then (when pressed into a corner he can’t back out of) get all passive aggressive and say, “You can look it up, I don’t have to prove anything to you.”

Which is true. He doesn’t. We, of course, also don’t have to take his word for it, because he’s not any sort of authority on this. He’s a 30ish OT guy from Boston, who has proven himself to be clueless, and wrong, on a host of things from marriage, to the law, to macro-economics. The breadth of his failed claims to knowledge is stunning. A veritable polymath of willful ignorance.

In a lot of ways he puts NWO to shame. He’s in the running for DKM status, in terms of what he doesn’t know about the functioning of his pet beliefs.

Like Meller, you don’t even have to wind him. He does that himself.

This is pretty self-absorbed of me, I’ll admit, but my personal favourite bit of back-tracking was when he said, supposedly directly to me, supposedly in response to my words:

Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

And when I pointed out that I wasn’t telling anyone who they could or couldn’t date, he responded:

@Viscaria: You say you do not care, but Pecunium sees those relationships as suspect. One can not say they do not care but sees those relationships as suspect or with any form of suspicion.

If you were a woman, Pecunium, I’d say that he can tell me how I feel using your words because of the female hivemind; but as it stands, I’m at a loss.

Viscaria: And he also failed to pay attention to what I was saying; taking my concerns about the structural problem in widely age-divergent relationships as a blanket condemnation of them; in direct contradiction of what I actually said.

It’s as if he doesn’t think anyone exists by Brandon, and only what Brandon says matters.

@Pecunium: It’s actually pretty amusing watching you get everything so wrong and twisting my words so much.

I also find it funny that you (and most of the other commenters here) think they can just demand that I provide sources…as if you were my college professor. I don’t have to prove shit to you. If you don’t agree with me, fine. People disagree all the time. Get over it.

I found one point interesting. The whole “I look down on women” bit is fairly amusing. I look down on people that demand sympathy and are always bitching about how the world is cruel to them…so basically I look down on feminists.

In fact, most of my closest friends are women and I have far more female friends than male friends. If I really looked down on them, why do they keep calling me? Why do they want to hang out with me? Why do they get annoyed if I don’t see/talk to them for a while? Why do my female neighbors constantly knock on my door to see what I am doing and if they can hang out with me? Why do they cook for me without me even asking? Why do they always flirt with me? Why do they constantly hug and kiss me? Why are they always touching me affectionately? Why do some of them respond positively to my advances?

If I really treated women like shit…then they would avoid me like the plague. They don’t. At best I repel feminists…and honestly, I am OK with that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.