TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Aatjal Archive

View 0 posts and 79 comments by Aatjal 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)
1

Yeah, I figured so. You definitely didn't have a choice and couldn't just say no. Doing that would result in severe bullying and being called supot. Your family probably wouldn't treat you like an adult either if you didn't have it done.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 05:52 PM
2

What country do you live in? Because I don't think that you had much of a realistic choice at all.
/r/MensRights20/07/24 12:30 PM
1

Her entire premise was wrong from the start. Mutilation generally implies something beyond removing a useless bit of skin. EVERY form of female circumcision is banned, even the ones that are MUCH less invasive than a typical male circumcision. It's because with male genital mutilation, we apply a damage principle, saying that if it is performed correctly, it isn't damaging and therefore totally okay to do, despite it removing the foreskin and its functions. When it comes to FGM, we don't even co…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/24 10:05 AM
2

Less skin and thus less crevices for things to accumulate. Female genitals are also made of mucosal tissue and also create smegma if not cleaned from time to time. So if we use the hygiene argument for the circumcision of boys and see that as a real "benefit", we should be logically consistent and apply that logic to female circumcision aswell.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/24 09:19 AM
1

Doubt it. I wonder why two different people would be interested in my month old comments to talk about circumcision all of a sudden. But I just told you that I am not the other person. So you can doubt it all you want, but I just told you that I am not. And there are actually health benefits of removing it. Do you mean that there are potential health benefits? Because like I said in my other comment, those cultures in which certain forms of FGM are normalized also talk about how hygienic FGM is.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/24 09:06 AM
1

No, it isn't. But it's funny how you avoided answering any of my points.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/24 08:49 AM
2

Some cultures think that a girl's clitoral hood or a part of her labia is useless and then proceed to cut one or both of those off. Why is that mutilation but removing the entire foreskin is not? Just because a man can still become erect, enjoy sex and ejaculate, that doesn't make the foreskin useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/24 08:47 AM
5

I'm cut. Everything works How do you know that everything works if you don't have everything?
/r/MensRights11/11/23 03:41 PM
24

Loss of feeling isn't a side effect. It's exactly how circumcision started. Nowadays we justify it with hygiene and other positive bullshit. ​It was done to decrease sexual sensation. Male circumcision was, just like female circumcision, done to discourage people from having sex. The difference between the two is that with female circumcision, we acknowledge that it was done for horrible reasons, but with male circumcision, we simply made up new shit to justify it. That is why circumcision is so…
/r/MensRights11/11/23 03:34 PM
10

No, it's less invasive. FGM would be the removal of the clitoral hood, which is analogous to the foreskin but way less developed.
/r/MensRights24/09/23 09:05 AM
1

I wish you the best, but this argument is already settled in the mainstream world for a reason. Correct. Male circumcision is STILL allowed in Europe ONLY because of religious reasons. Virtually EVERY country has wanted to ban it for non-therapeutic reasons, but "religious freedom" is the thing that allows it. Like I said, it has nothing to do with the damage that it causes. Otherwise, ritual pinpricking of girls would be allowed as it doesn't remove any tissue or function. but it won’t change t…
/r/Male_Studies18/07/23 07:00 AM
3

Female circumcision exists in a variety of forms. Of the 4 total categories, 1 is objectively less damaging than the average American circumcision and another is roughly equivalent. The other 2 are worse. It is not accurate, nor fair, to apply points about a single and uncommon type of female genital cutting, to all types (which also includes ritual pinpricking and bloodletting ceremonies, in which no tissue is removed) All forms of FGM are horrible and banned, but male circumcision isn't, despi…
/r/Male_Studies14/07/23 03:05 PM
4

The culture dictates their preference. Men don't do it, and that is why those same mothers get their boys circumcised as quickly as possible. It's all about control. Do it as quick as possible, because the boy will resist when he grows up.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 08:21 PM
4

What makes you think that there's only one reason? You do know that there can be multiple reasons as to why someone can feel bad, right?
/r/MensRights26/04/23 10:51 AM
13

aight enjoy your stanky dick bruh. This is what you said. You immediately started shaming people for having different opinions and different penises. Despite the shaming, I still gave you an insightful reply and showed respect. You pro-circumcision people need to stop casually throwing jabs at people who aren't circumcised, and then demanding respect in the same breath. thanks for such a thorough and polite reply, I'm used to being on the defensive or passive offensive on reddit. I appreciate yo…
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:27 AM
13

Good. Hopefully it'll make you understand how incredibly stupid circumcision is. And stop shaming men for having whole penises. Thank you. Edit: Okay, nevermind. You blocked me instead. Great.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:20 AM
15

My religious parents had me circumcised before I could fucking talk on the ASSUMPTION that I'd be happy with it, and I am an atheist now... And now you just expect me to NOT hate religion, despite the mutilation that it has left on my genitals? Man, you religious nutters.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:16 AM
31

There are MANY places in Turkey where they don't use local anesthetic. Edit: But let's be honest... Anesthetic or no anesthetic, mutilation is mutilation.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:13 AM
21

aight enjoy your stanky dick bruh I've never understood the hygiene argument. A body is biological. It becomes dirty, and we wash our entire bodies. Why is the foreskin an exception? Hygiene is not a modern invention. My cat washes itself, and so do the mice and birds it catches. Cleaning a foreskin is easy. One pulls it back for 5 seconds under the shower to rinse it. If you have so much trouble with that, I wonder what your teeth look like, considering those must be brushed 2x2 minutes a day. …
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:12 AM
7

Though if one isn't religious I'd probably say reconsider doing it What is there to reconsider? It's not a choice. My religious parents had me circumcised for religious/cultural reasons and I am not religious.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 06:09 AM
2

My joke is that when an infant dies of bleeding following his circumcision, people don't blame the circumcision for it... Even though the bleeding was a direct result of the circumcision.
/r/MensRights29/03/23 08:18 PM
2

That's not because of the circumcision. It's because he was bleeding which is completely unrelated to the circumcision. /s
/r/MensRights29/03/23 08:39 AM
2

I don't understand how you concluded that he didn't read the article. He gave his opinion, and then said that they didn't "respect his consent", which is true - They did not respect the fact that he couldn't consent.
/r/MensRights28/03/23 06:39 PM
12

No, it's the outcome of you cutting into the genitals of infants and children without any legitimate reason.
/r/MensRights28/03/23 06:37 PM
1

This could very well have been the reason why it started, as some of male circumcision's oldest records also show that male circumcision was done to decrease the male's lust. But both of them are currently retroactively justified with aesthetics, decreased chance of this and that, and sex partner's preference. That's the thing with both female and male circumcision cultures; Instead of sticking to their misandrist and misogynistic origins, such as decreasing pleasure and trying to control people…
/r/MensRights17/07/22 06:58 PM
2

If you were to compare one problem to another, we could eventually also discard the problem of FGM because there are worse things than FGM, such as war. It's called relative privation, and you don't discard human rights violations just because there are things that are more impactful. "This is an example of a fallacy called the fallacy of relative privation. The fallacy of relative privation rejects an argument by stating the existence of a more important problem. The existence of such a worse i…
/r/MensRights16/07/22 06:49 AM
2

Correct. I'm unhappy about the fact that a person cut off a part of my penis. Good on you for realizing that. So why does me being unhappy with the procedure deserve to be discarded in the face of your experience? You being happy changes nothing about the men who are not happy with their circumcisions.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 11:18 PM
1

and i think that this is also due to the fact that a lot of people do it by their own will, go to hospitals etc to get a circumcision Literally the VAST majority of boys who grow up into adulthood with their foreskins don't choose to get circumcised.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 10:43 PM
3

Stop blaming men for female genital mutilation. The biggest proponents of female genital mutilation are circumcised women. They justify female circumcision with the EXACT same excuses that pro-male circumcision people use; They say it is cleaner, better looking, decreases the chance of infection, and is preferred by the opposite sex.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 10:38 PM
3

I'm happy my parents saved me a painful surgery later in life. There is NO way for a doctor NOR the parents to predict whether an infant will be thankful for being circumcised later in life. Men who made it into adulthood can choose to get circumcised if they want, but men who got circumcised in infancy can't choose to reverse it. If we allowed adult men to choose to get circumcised themselves, the only circumcised people would be people who actually want to be circumcised. Because this isn't th…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 10:35 PM
3

He's being downvoted because it takes severe neglect for smegma to actually accumulate, but he's convinced that non-circumcised men suffer from it 24/7.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 10:33 PM
14

Why do you think that pro-circumcision cultures have to make bullshit pseudoscience in the first place, that claims that removal of the foreskin... Magically has no affect on sensitivity/function!? They have to make up bullshit to justify doing this to babies, because if they acknowledge that it is harmful, then there would be a lot of angry people and it'd be seen for the harmful violation of bodily rights that it is.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 04:51 PM
11

The health benefits are there but not really necessary in the modern world I think. We’ve made too many advances. The health benefits of removing the foreskin are like the health benefits of removing the labia on a women; Yes, if you remove tissue, there is less chance for that tissue to become dirty. Do you consider removing the labia on women to be beneficial? Or do you think that the labia is just another body part that yes, like any body part, can become infected? If the latter, why do you n…
/r/MensRights06/07/22 04:48 PM
24

You claim thousands of men have experienced this so why do they not experience the same things in a controlled environment? Maybe because the "science" that claims that cutting off a part of a man's sex organ DOESN'T AFFECT IT AT ALL is completely bullshit? This should be common sense. Come on man.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 04:43 PM
2

You're the minority that feels violated. The vast majority of circumcised guys do not feel that way. That is correct. Most circumcised women are also satisfied with their circumcision and support circumcising their daughters... Does that make FGM okay? 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM You're trying to force you're feelings on all of them and claim something that just isn't so. The intacticists like to harass people o…
/r/MensRights06/07/22 06:44 AM
3

The USA having many nobel laureates doesn't prove the pseudoscience behind circumcision. The only reason why the USA creates pseudoscience in favor of circumcision is because you need a justification to genitally mutilate a small infant's genitals. The benefits and "science" behind circumcision are unproven.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 12:55 AM
3

I'm happy for you that you got to make that decision as an adult. Men like me, who got cut as infants and hate being circumcised, have very little to reverse what ails us.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 11:05 PM
13

Mothers admitting to changing their infant sons' genitals for their own sexual preference, which is fking pedophilia.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 11:02 PM
3

The U.S. also leads the world in medical advancements in every category (new drug development, new biotech therapeutics, R&D spending, peer reviewed medical publications, biomedical research, and Nobel laureates in physiology and medicine) The American health system is absolutely shit. People can't even afford insulin, an ambulance or life saving surgeries, yet you're praising Americans because they have medicalized a disgusting genital mutilation procedure by demonizing the foreskin.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:59 PM
1

Right. I follow the first subreddit and have not seen anything related to pro-life, especially any sort of "rise" in pro-life.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 05:51 PM
3

I'm fairly active when it comes to intactivism, and I have not seen people mentioning pro-life once.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:01 PM
19

Cosmetically altering your son's penis for your own preference is fine... But good lord, imagine if we used this reasoning to justify ADULT MEN circumcising their baby girls because "beef flaps are gross looking and not their preference". Edit: But if you call out those pedophile women who cosmetically alter their sons' genitals, they'll quickly disguise their aesthetics reason under "it's more hygienic!!! it also has health benefits!!!"
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:58 PM
1

In fact uncircumcised decreases the enjoyment of sex due to the desensitization of the penis head. Uncircumcised causes the skin of the head to be ruff due to over exposure to underwear and can lead to erectile problems. circumcised****
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:55 PM
3

He did not reply to your "stupid as fuck" point because he agrees with that point. He replied to your point in which you talked about how they are different because FGM is done to prevent pleasure, even though for men, male circumcision was done in many cultures for the SAME reasons. And then we started seeing that as bad, so we made up other bullshit reasons to justify male circumcision.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:54 PM
2

But I don’t think that’s what you’re asking. Guys can still enjoy sex and masturbate without foreskin. So whatever the archaic first reason was now it’s just tradition. Most circumcised women are also satisfied with their circumcision and support circumcising their daughters... Does that make FGM okay? 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:51 PM
1

Circumcision isn't more common in the industry, America just happens to be the biggest producer of porn, and majority of American men happen to be circumcised.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:49 PM
1

My muslim parents circumcised me as a baby on the assumption that I'd be a happy thankful muslim. At around 7, I was already an atheist and hated that I got circumcised. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "Freedom to permanently etch my beliefs on my son's body." A religion does NOT justify cutting off parts of a person's genitals when he can't defend himself. If one's beliefs command him/her to violate a baby's/small child's human rights by cutting off genital bits, you CAN call out that relig…
/r/MensRights07/05/22 10:04 PM
2

I suggested to him that we should also preventatively cut off other bodyparts because they are also infection and cancer risks, but he only seems to apply this logic to the foreskin and avoids answering my questions.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 09:53 AM
3

Foreskins don't cause a "tenfold" increase in UTI's, and just because studies state that they have "evidence" of something, that doesn't mean they do. The incidence of UTI's in women is almost 10x more than in men, and that simply has to do with the fact that the female urethra is shorter than a male's urethra, and thus pathogens have a much easier time causing infections in women. UTI's are rare in men, and are easily treated with modern medicine. I seriously can not understand why you try to j…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 11:21 PM
3

No, it is not a benefit. It is a potential benefit. We're talking about an infection. A simple infection that can be treated with MUCH less severe means, which costs less money, and is much less invasive; A simple anti-biotic. According to cancer.org, male breast cancer occurs in 1:833 of men. Do you propose that we cut off male nipples preventatively too for its potential benefits? You guys just love demonizing people...men and fathers...because of a choice they make to protect their sons healt…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 10:30 PM
3

Dude there are different kinds of female circumcision...and the kind that people refer to as mutilation is when they remove the girls clitoris. This is not true at all. According to the WHO, ANY type of cutting/pricking of the girls' genitals is considered female genital mutilation. A ritual nick, which means a tiny pinprick for a DROP OF BLOOD, which doesn't remove ANY tissue nor function, is considered female genital mutilation, according to the WHO. But a boy's entire foreskin? Nahh, nothing …
/r/MensRights04/05/22 10:16 PM
3

The fact that you can say that it's not mutilation when an adult does it to themselves sums this up perfectly. I don't understand your point, because the same logic that this person is using is also applied for women. If you circumcise a girl's labia, it is called female genital mutilation - but if an adult woman chooses to undergo the same thing surgically for herself, it is called labiaplasty. Does that make female genital mutilation a bad term? Should we not refer to it as genital mutilation …
/r/MensRights04/05/22 09:49 PM
3

according to your own quoted statistic, if you know 100 uncircumcised men...then one of them for sure, grew up with an infection of some kind. That is not what my source said. My source talked about a lifetime percentage, not a percentage of boys getting infections in childhood. If you talk about bodily problems, 1.29% is an EXTREMELY small risk compared to other medical problems. The funny part is that the source states that circumcised men have a insignificantly fucking small 1.27% lifetime ch…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 09:42 PM
2

I'm fairly certain that the infibulation one is African, not Eastern. 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM and justify it with the same things that male circumcision cultures justify it with; Circumcised women from female circumcision cultures ALSO justify female circumcision with decreased changes of infections, better aesthetics, and better hygiene. Here are some images that show the behavior of circumcised eastern wom…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 05:58 PM
6

So, let's stop calling it genital mutilation for women aswell then. You don't want to hurt the feelings of circumcised women who are defensive about what happened to them either, right? After all, 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM and justify it with the same things that male circumcision cultures justify it with; Circumcised women from female circumcision cultures ALSO justify female circumcision with decreased chang…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 12:16 PM
3

Ah, you must be Christian. Now I see why you're sticking up for religious circumcision. If you acknowledge that religious (Islamic & Jewish) genital cutting rituals are open for debate and criticism, it also means your own religion is open for criticism, and you can't have that. Also, did you watch the Sex & Circumcision video?
/r/MensRights04/05/22 11:53 AM
2

No, they do not have first-hand anecdotes about the benefits. They live in a circumcision culture, surrounded by other circumcised men. They LACK an exposure to men who are not circumcised. If they were exposed to the opinions of non-circumcised men, they would begin to understand that the foreskin doesn't cause disease as much as they claim it does. But they aren't. Their culture makes up bullshit about the foreskin and demonize it to justify the circumcision of minors. What do the circumcised …
/r/MensRights04/05/22 11:51 AM
2

Which is also why the best time to get it done is when you're a baby. Getting it done later increases the risk of complications due to infection. This is not a question of getting circumcised in infancy versus getting circumcised in adulthood. There's another option, and this option happens to be the option that you are purposefully leaving out, and that virtually ALL adult men with foreskins choose for; The option not to get circumcised at all. Early childhood is when your kid is at the highest…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 10:37 AM
3

Buddy, this whole "issue", wasn't even an issue until right around the time the Syrian refugee crisis started. Then all of a sudden, up pops dozens of astroturfed movements against circumcision...all paid for and promoted by far-right political lobbies, pushing hard for legislation to be enacted, that would ban circumcision. Why? To make their local areas as unappealing to Muslim immigrants as possible. They want to ban the circumcision OF MINORS because it is a human rights violation. The argue…
/r/MensRights04/05/22 10:29 AM
3

White nationalist propaganda There we go. More baseless bullshit. Being against the genital mutilation of babies is white propaganda now? You pro baby dick cutters sure are a strange bunch. "Stop cutting into the penises of children" really is a hard thing, huh?
/r/MensRights03/05/22 10:32 PM
3

Oh, and now you're accusing me of lying and wanting to keep "brown folks" from moving in. All of this bullshit, accusing me of being anti-semitic, islamophobic, now brown-o-phobic, saying "ohh, there are a million other things we do without consent"... As if raising a child is at all comparable to cutting off a part of his sex organs. what's so bad about your penis, that you think your parents "violated" you? A part of it was cut off without my consent. That is what it bad about it, but pro-circ…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 08:47 PM
1

Buddy, as long as it's done by an actual pediatric surgeon, in a proper medical facility, the complications are nearly non existent. My circumcision went great, and I still hate it because it is genital mutilation and a violation of my human rights, regardless of how succesfully it was carried out or not. All this push to ban circumcision is what's going to cause more incidents, by forcing people to go outside the proper channels to get it done. Do you propose the same for female circumcision? T…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 08:38 AM
3

You're avoiding my point entirely, which proves to me that you do not truly care about human rights, nor about the ethics of non-therapeutic circumcision of minors. Whilst I'm explaining that a part of it has been cut off by religious people to force me into the religion, all you are thinking about is how I was sentient enough to think for myself at that age. I criticized your notion that being pro human rights is anti-semitic (and islamophobic), and you refused to comment on that.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 08:30 AM
3

My muslim parents circumcised me as a baby on the assumption that I'd be a happy thankful muslim. At around 7, I was already an atheist and hated that I got circumcised. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "Freedom to permanently etch my beliefs on my son's body." A religion does NOT justify cutting off parts of a person's genitals when he can't defend himself. If one's beliefs command him/her to violate a baby's/small child's human rights by cutting off genital bits, you CAN call out that relig…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:28 AM
3

My muslim parents circumcised me as a baby on the assumption that I'd be a happy thankful muslim. At around 7, I was already an atheist and hated that I got circumcised. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "Freedom to permanently etch my beliefs on my son's body." A religion does NOT justify cutting off parts of a person's genitals when he can't defend himself. If one's beliefs command him/her to violate a baby's/small child's human rights by cutting off genital bits, you CAN call out that relig…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:24 AM
3

Most circumcised women are also satisfied with their circumcision and support circumcising their daughters... Does that make FGM okay? 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:21 AM
3

Most circumcised women are also satisfied with their circumcision and support circumcising their daughters... Does that make FGM okay? 92% of Indonesian mothers support Type IV FGM for their daughters and 82% of Egyptian mothers support Type I FGM
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:18 AM
5

It diminishes the true inhumanity of hacking off a woman's clitoris (and more) in order to ruin her ability to enjoy sex, as a means of control. Male circumcision was done for the same reasons. We just made up new bullshit to justify it. "Hygiene" and "Medical benefits." I'm staunchly against circumcision and would never compromise on that, but they are clearly not equal in terms of intent or severity. What metrics are you using to determine this? One form of FGM is not equal to the other. Takin…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:16 AM
1

Well, at least that shows a consistent weight and that she isn't still gaining pound after pound.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen18/08/21 03:11 PM
1

I love how if one has the gift of height, women are willing to put up with his asshole behavior.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen18/08/21 03:10 PM
1

>I'm a grown ass woman >420 everyday over here These two sentences don't work together at all.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen18/08/21 02:59 PM
34

The only question she legit meant was the height question. The other ones are so stupid, as if she made them up in a couple of seconds.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen08/05/21 10:13 AM
2

two pieces of children please
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen20/04/21 07:47 AM
2

That's not her fault. I made my Tinder with my FB account, and it showed that I was 71 years old, and I had no way to change it. Even when changing my age on my FB, it didn't change it on Tinder.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen15/03/21 10:38 AM
1

Cutting off a part of a baby's penis has nothing to do with bodily rights? What's wrong with you?
/r/MensRights26/02/21 03:22 PM
1

The "girl flips out" part is just something OP made up as a way of making men seem bad. Kind of like "The man did this, and eventually the women suffered from it." I've never seen a girl flip out because someone doesn't want to be friends after asking her out. What a made up scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/20 07:28 AM
10

So first she throws your rights off to the sides by forcing you to undergo a horrible procedure, and then calls you an extremist for telling her you are not happy with the genital modification/mutilation done on you. Lol what?
/r/MensRights16/06/20 08:26 PM
2

Person who is fine with being circumcised and doesn't listen to the very logical points against it is the person who assumes that the informed intactivist is suffering from cognitive dissonance, while he is trying to drag the conversation to another subject.
/r/MensRights26/05/20 05:10 PM
2

I'm not too sure, but filming someone having sex with you is illegal - so men would be fucked anyway. lol
/r/MensRights08/12/19 11:59 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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