TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ATI_nerd Archive

View 0 posts and 73 comments by ATI_nerd 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Well, I don't know about you all, but my prostate is far enough away from the end of my penis that it's hard for me to imagine the end of my penis can make much difference there. May as well try to measure whether my kneecaps might be involved.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 12:22 AM
2

Maybe think of it as a consent issue, since consent is a bit of a golden cow.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 10:41 PM
2

Catching everything in the foreskin in a pinch is pretty convenient, I must say.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 01:26 AM
3

One possible issue with the article is that 'made to penetrate' doesn't necessarily mean women are doing the raping. That aside, these numbers are interesting.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:11 AM
1

How can these at all be legal?
/r/MensRights02/05/14 07:07 PM
-26

IIRC, viking women were pretty tough.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 07:13 AM
1

I'd like to imagine solicitation, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of it actually happening.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 07:44 AM
7

Did you and wife decide to spare your son that possible pain and suffering by not circumcising your son, or by circumcising him?
/r/MensRights22/08/13 09:15 PM
0

Or the old UFIA?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:39 AM
1

Shibboleth goes back to the bible, actually.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:29 AM
3

It's a more important argument than a cosmetic or religious one, maybe, but it's still not a very good argument.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 11:43 PM
4

Medical professionals tend to only see medical issues, it's a tremendously biased selection.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:08 PM
4

Not enough data ≠ low rate, it means the rate is unknown.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:03 PM
10

The majority of men circumcised as adults did so for medical reasons. It's like someone with toothache telling you that life without that tooth is much better. They are right, but their opinion doesn't apply to a healthy organ.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:26 PM
3

No, there's nothing wrong with having them, but there's something wrong with forcing them upon other (helpless) people.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:53 AM
6

I've started to think the most important part of changing minds on the issue is to familiarize people with normal, intact penises. It's kind of like everyone getting used to airbrushed models in magazines, they have an entirely artificial concept of penises. There are people who have never seen intact ones. Given that, I can't blame them for being uncomfortable with foreskins, the concept is alien to them. These people don't understand their sons as they are, and have to force them to undergo su…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:58 AM
2

An interesting look at the HIV question is found here.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:52 AM
3

If this happened on an airplane, the pilot would likely be considered a hero.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 07:53 AM
3

Excellent.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 05:01 AM
3

It sure is a tough spot to be in, I'm sorry.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 06:59 PM
8

It's not plausible to wash every week, but it's safe to perform surgery?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:09 AM
5

It's not that bad relative to what? Also, it's important to realize that nobody intends to stigmatize anyone who willingly opts for circumcision for themselves. I mean, tattoos are cool and all, but forcing people to get tattoos because you think untattooed people are weird is a problem.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:40 AM
2

No, but it says most of what we hear about female circumcision tends to be wildly exaggerated accounts from biased advocacy groups. The truth is that they are arguably comparable.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 10:18 PM
6

They kinda are.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 08:52 PM
7

"But sanfrustration, its mutilation," they say. No, it really isn't. 80% of men 30 years and over in the U.S. are circumcised, including the majority of Americans subscribed to this subreddit. The number of men affected doesn't have any bearing on whether it's mutilation or not. However, the term is very loaded. It's mostly used to help elicit an emotional reaction, since that appears very lacking, and it's understandably insulting to those affected. And who whines about it? Who wishes it had ne…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 08:58 AM
7

I tend to think that circumcision says a great deal about how society views men and women. Girls are perfect, (sugar and spice, everything nice) and should be protected at all costs. No mention of FGM is tolerated, debate is instantly shut down, yet the harms are arguably "highly exaggerated". On the other hand, the males are instantly problematic (snips and snails and puppy dog's tails), his penis is a problem, so he's shunted off to some stranger with clamps and scalpels to fix him. In this in…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 08:48 AM
14

Parents control absolutely everything about their childrens' lives. You can do anything you want to them as long as it's legal. It's pretty sad that people need laws to prevent them from doing whatever they want to their children.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:01 AM
18

The guys I play xbox with regularly are roughly 50% latin and 50% asian, the amount of friendly racism in the bunch is incredible.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:32 PM
8

Best reply I've heard to that line of thought in the author's title is: "Christ was also crucified, should we all try that too?"
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:06 AM
2

Definitely not anything more.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 05:40 AM
1

I kinda sorta do actually think that many mothers prefer their son's penis to resemble their husband's. Maybe some sort of psychological stuffs.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:05 AM
2

I agree, but I understand why it might be seen that way in some instances. Especially since the argument "girls won't like it if it's not cut" is used quite often. In this case, it's far more likely the mother just saw it as a prophylactic medical procedure.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:00 AM
3

I've heard a lot of women demand it, actually.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:40 AM
1

I'm not sure, really. From what I've read written by women who actually promote FGM (and not just western criticisms), it doesn't appear explicitly a male creation to control women. It appears to be an average initiation thing, which women do want, for various reasons. In fact, there is some difficulty in attempting to stop it in those developing countries when we are, at the exact same time, encouraging MGM to prevent HIV.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 09:21 PM
3

No problem. I hesitate to make anyone feel like they are missing anything, but I guess it's important to realize there is some difference.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:54 AM
3

The best description I've heard, is comparing it to color-blindness. The color-blind still enjoy movies and tv (as the circumcised, sex), but some measure of the picture is missing. The other description is a music analogy. Some people explain that if sex were any more enjoyable, their head would explode. The music analogy tries to point out that such concerns are like the volume of the music you are listening to. Having a foreskin doesn't increase the volume (would be be painful), but it can ad…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:08 AM
2

It's tough to prove a negative.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 12:32 AM
4

There are indeed some who are cut and resent it, and probably a lot more who are not cut, and resent the implications that they must therefore be dirty and ugly. When it comes down to it, the most common reason people are against it is because it is something few men would ever choose for themselves, but which parents often choose for their children.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 09:19 PM
2

I appreciate the link to that fact sheet, but the response I've had in the past with sharing that sort of information is "the claims about FGM are false, but the claims about MGM are true, therefore the comparison is invalid". Where do we go from there?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 09:17 PM
5

"Ideally" the foreskin is crushed to prevent too much bleeding, but there are some disorders which will prevent clotting and create huge problems despite that. Also, the procedure may get fucked up, the penis might be nicked by the scalpel or something like that. Edit to add: Caresian_Duelist is talking about two things, I think: cutting the penis tearing the foreskin from the glans Both cause bleeding, though the crushing is supposed to prevent the first kind.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 05:55 AM
1

This is a very good point, I wish ob/gyn's would refer parents to pediatricians and urologists instead of taking matters into their own hands.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:51 PM
3

Hey, thanks for thanking me!
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:26 AM
6

I don't consider myself a leftist, and I can't really speak for you, but millions of people really do fear an intact penis. Isn't that the basis for all of the health arguments? Isn't that why there are comments about girls preferring a circumcised penis? I realize the tradition or religious arguments might not involve fear, but one might argue fear of cultural shunning or fear of hell is involved in some way. Hell, one might say that a fear of cutting their penis might even be one reason a lot …
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:09 AM
5

If circumcision was limited to something which only affected adults, sure, we could respectfully disagree and we probably wouldn't see any of these threads. But you have to remember, anything which affects a child will automatically engender a huge emotional response. So when you say: I'm going to have my boys circumcised when they're born. You have to expect a lot of disagreement. In one aspect, it directly contradicts your next statement: I feel like every one of these threads, even though it'…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:55 AM
2

The wikipedia article you cited points out: Both the WHO and CDC indicate that circumcision may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data are lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with a female partner. So in this context (woman claiming to be safe from infection) circumcision status is moot. Aside from that, there are many flaws with the HIV "vaccination" which the WHO seems so eager to disseminate.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 03:19 AM
4

It's pretty hard for me to get my head around these sorts of initiation rituals. I simply can't imagine it. This one is godawful, but even in places like the Philippines or a few other (mostly Muslim) places, entire families get together, mothers and sisters watch as the boys get circumcised. I guess we shouldn't underestimate the complex psychological significance of it, but I can't even understand it. Makes me think people who claim to only value the supposed medical benefits are full of shit.…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:00 AM
1

I consider myself a very aware person, and as a consequence, not awfully worried. What I see tends to not scare me. Perhaps a woman tends to be scared by what she sees?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:44 PM
18

I'm not sure I've had a defiant erection.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:30 PM
1

Does this make an argument to lower the legal age at which teens can consent to sex?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:18 PM
2

The pros and cons of circumcision are possibly debatable, and hopefully nobody is made to feel bad about their own status. The issue I (and many others) take with it is doing it to babies, and encouraging it instead of encouraging education.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 07:19 PM
9

fuck
/r/MensRights07/05/12 02:23 AM
1

Can anyone explain why the whole article looks redacted? It doesn't seem to have any text for me.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 12:01 AM
16

FGM hits a tremendous trigger, and comparing it to male circumcision destroys the comfortable paradigm we've created for ourselves in which circumcising little boys is something silly to worry about, as it's the beautification and healthification of the male member by removing a useless and disgusting bit of flesh through something that 'isn't even surgery'. For one thing, stories about girls nearly (or actually) bleeding to death out in the desert, their searing pain, weird looking hoohahs and …
/r/MensRights28/04/12 10:41 PM
3

Yeah, the ages reported in the article (14-17) confuse the issue slightly, as 14 appears to be clearly illegal, but 17 was probably fine.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 10:21 PM
18

I guess you could ask her, if in those areas where female circumcision occurs, do those folks believe they are bad parents? Both those parents participating in mutilating their daughters and those mutilating their sons have their kid's best interests at heart. Both are utterly convinced they have done the best thing for their children. Both are objectively wrong. Yes, they are making tremendous mistakes, but that is gonna happen to parents. It doesn't mean they don't love their kids or are bad p…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 10:07 AM
3

For myself, as an uncut person who grew up in America, the thought of cutting skin off my penis (and subsequent biological changes and scarring) is awful, and the thought of that happening to a baby is similarly (if not more) awful. The defense of circumcision (or promotion thereof) is a bit painful to me as well, as each argument basically attacks me personally. From that standpoint, I really understand why cut guys don't appreciate the criticism of their own manhood. The "which is better" argu…
/r/MensRights22/04/12 08:18 PM
-1

Well said, COCKPUNCHER.
/r/MensRights22/04/12 08:00 PM
2

I found the article most interesting on the subject of objectification and the way the sexes view sexual imagery. It's long been argued that society prefers to use the female form in sexually charged advertising (and displays it more often in film and media for sexual purposes) simply because men are in charge and want to see the female form unless they are gay. This article lends credence to the idea that women also prefer to see the female form, but not for the same reasons men prefer to see i…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 10:19 PM
1

The biological throwback makes sense for women, but how does it makes sense of the unwanted erection?
/r/MensRights21/04/12 10:14 PM
1

The view of Islam on a lot of stuff like this is kind of complicated, combined with the fact that the USA thinks they are all insane and evil anyway, means that the USA won't bother to ponder this side of the issue very long.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 10:09 PM
1

“The issue is that women tend to have their children when organisations are making their decisions about who has potential to move into the highest levels… For highly educated women, that age is increasing from mid-thirties to early-forties, which is precisely when organisations are making their bets about who has got potential. A lot of time those bets depend upon who is ready, willing and able to give their all for the organisation. That is a hard thing to do when you are also trying to start …
/r/MensRights17/04/12 09:15 PM
1

Even better, pay rate is lower if you only pass the lower fitness test; full pay rate is reserved for those passing the main test.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 11:32 PM
1

There is a sort of attitude which makes decision about boys the father's responsibility, and those about girls, the mothers. Perhaps this is a result of that kind of thinking.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 05:01 AM
8

I know, but so many people have no idea they have been circumcised or what a normal penis actually is, that a sort of delusion truly exists. It's absolutely wonderful that people accept themselves (in fact, it's vital), but if they go past that to where they want to make their child's penis in their own image there is a problem.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 07:38 PM
6

It seems like people who consider cutting baby dicks could use some emotional perspective. As it is, the term 'circumcision' and consequently the opposite 'uncircumcised' implies a necessity or normality where non exists. It is extremely misleading. Raising a child entails a lot of decisions be made for that child, but one would be hard pressed to find another where a healthy body part is removed, let alone one with sexuality in mind.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:11 PM
7

Such a strange delusion.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:05 PM
1

It is remarkable how people can just take it for granted and don't even understand why anyone would object.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:35 PM
3

It will be interesting to see what comments (if any) make it through moderation there.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 10:12 PM
13

This is the authors actual blog
/r/MensRights06/03/12 09:07 PM
2

Yeah, I'm really not sure why the Catholic church is given so much shit about pedo scandals when people are just sitting by and watching as other people suck their babies mutilated dicks.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 05:51 AM
1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
/r/MensRights05/03/12 10:14 PM
2

Even when that article was first posted, it hasn't worked for me.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:09 PM
1

I actually know a guy whose father made him and his brothers get circumcised when the guy was 15. It's awful, but those who think it's ok for parents to decide this for their baby have a hard time arguing against allowing parents to do so at any age up to 18.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 09:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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