TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Jaleth Archive

View 0 posts and 51 comments by Jaleth 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)
6

Perhaps if preputial tissue naturally disintegrated like the umbilical cord, and if humans treated their navels with the same intimate gravitas as their sexual organs, your comparison would be valid. Of course, one could take the route that, since the umbilical cord will dislodge itself under normal circumstances, that surgery to remove it is unnecessary. But since it is anatomically abnormal for a human being to have an umbilical cord throughout life, surgical intervention changes little. The f…
/r/MensRights14/08/18 01:59 AM
12

But it's too much to ask the same of a father who is inexplicably bent over taking a sharp object to his infant son's genitals? I'd suggest that if you absolutely want the right to do such a thing, take some off of your own instead. Your body, your choice. His body, his choice and all that.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 11:55 PM
3

The human body is a singular warm, moist area. The fact that the vast majority of men in the world who aren't cut (which is the majority of men in the world, btw) don't suffer from debilitating penis diseases is evidence enough that your claim is dubious at best.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 11:45 PM
6

Just out of curiosity, what should an aggrieved son be allowed to do to his father if he is angry about being forcibly circumcised?
/r/MensRights13/08/18 11:34 PM
16

It doesn't work that way because we choose that. Religiously or culturally, my position is the same. There are a lot of cultural norms that we do not allow children to engage in until they have reached a certain age. Across most of the world, alcohol is considered forbidden until the child has reached an age where he is considered to have reached a level of maturity that demands more personal responsibility, and then, he makes a choice to consume any alcohol or not. He can choose to abstain enti…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 07:03 PM
10

Here's the thing. Both Judaism and Islam permit converts (to the religion; I get that Islam treats converts from it differently). At least with Judaism, a male convert must be circumcised. In some groups, even if he was circumcised at birth, he still must go through some sort of bris or bris-like ceremony. In the civilized world, people who convert to a religion do so of their own accord. As an atheist, I consider all religious requirements to be rules imposed by man, so my perspective always co…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 06:39 PM
68

It speaks volumes about the lack of regard countries like the US have for it. We don’t even know basic hygienic procedure because we’ve normalized the removal of normal tissue. Eventually Americans will decide that circumcision isn’t right, but that’ll happen several generations from now, assuming trends continue.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 04:12 PM
146

The world needs more fathers like you. Men are the biggest obstacle to getting this procedure left in the past where it belongs, so it’s always good to hear about those who choose better for their sons.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:59 PM
36

Why is it that all arguments posited regarding FGM are considered off-limits while all arguments posited regarding circumcision are considered just fine? If the glans clitoris is removed, a woman is still left with sexually-sensitive tissue; the what we think of as the clitoris is really just the external part. There is a lot of internal structure that makes up what we call the g-spot. Removing the glans clitoris does not affect these other areas but we have determined that no amount of amputati…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:44 PM
25

It’s a poor argument because it can be applied to any non-essential part of the body and be equally justifiable. You could remove a finger, a hand, or even an arm from a boy in infancy since none of those are truly needed and justify it by asking why the amputee should care since he has never known the difference. A body and by extension all of its parts belong to the person who owns it (which is not the parents). My body belongs solely to me and no one else, not even my parents. A child’s paren…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:13 PM
29

Irrelevant. A baby shaken by his parents in infancy has no memory of being shaken, but even if it did no lasting damage, it’s still wrong.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:04 PM
36

I suspect that you only think intact is weird because we’ve made it that way. If we just stopped cutting off normal tissue for no reason, it wouldn’t be seen as weird.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:02 PM
34

Isn’t that up to each man to decide for himself and himself alone? Medical science has proven that foreskin is not just superfluous skin but erogenously-innervated tissue.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:00 PM
2

I had to have my wisdom teeth taken out in college. It was almost painful beyond compare; only stomach ulcers were worse. But it was a necessary surgery and I know that those can be unavoidable. But I was not given the choice when I was born whether to be cut or not; my parents made that choice for me. Should I be royally pissed off at them because they didn’t have my wisdom teeth dealt with at the earliest age possible? My dentist raised concerns about them as far back as I can remember, but th…
/r/MensRights20/02/18 02:56 PM
-1

Except that it isn't just skin that is lost. Skin regrows/regenerates when damaged. The foreskin is simply covered with skin but the inner part is an innervated mucous membrane.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 10:39 PM
0

The argument is somewhat flawed. Braces are installed to correct serious problems with teeth that not only can cause damage to either the teeth or the jaw, but at some point will. We don't just put braces on people because it's the thing to do.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 10:38 PM
4

It's more akin to making people realize that they've been victimized even if they don't see it. Consider Stockholm Syndrome. People who have been victimized by captivity and suffer Stockholm Syndrome may or may not reject the notion that they were wronged by another person. Regarding the former, we don't simply say "Well, Bobby doesn't think he was wronged despite the notion in our society that captivity is criminal." Or, consider people who are raped (and I mean those raped by coercion or victi…
/r/MensRights01/04/15 09:25 PM
3

This woman is not talking about enjoying the process, in fact, she goes on to explain various methods she has come to learn that make the process as stress and pain free as possible. Essentially, this breaks down to "This woman explains ways to minimize the stress and pain of a process that is not enjoyable and isn't even natural but is done anyway for purely arbitrary reasons." The woman makes no sense, and OP's defense of it is disconcerting. Hence, the downvotes. On a tangent, the video is qu…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 01:56 PM
6

At what point do we draw the line, then, when it comes to what things parents do to/for their kids?
/r/MensRights23/03/14 01:30 AM
6

I am confused about this same thing when people say that they don't want their kids to be teased over it. I don't know about others, but when I was in middle and high school boys did not do any comparing. Most, at that age, took care of locker room business quickly with minimal exposure, if you will.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:28 PM
3

Nothing needs to be debunked. You're proceeding under the assumption that the argument is that none of the touted benefits are real or trustworthy, when in fact, the argument is one of bodily integrity. In that light, no amount of research into the health benefits of circumcision will result in you winning the argument. You have to provide a counter to the central premise, that boys are not entitled to make that decision for themselves at an age when they can consent. EDIT: I should clarify that…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 11:08 PM
19

I'm intrigued by the verbiage used in the article. There are several occurrences of the phrases "women are better at" or "making women better at", however the article stops short of describing any function of mens' brains using similar phrasing.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 01:09 AM
2

It doesn't invalidate the argument. Many things taken for granted today started out by being favored by a minority.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:45 AM
1

I agree that cutting your baby's skin off without a reason is making a decision for them when you don't have to, and much like every other decision a parent makes for their child, it must be heavily considered. Honestly, I don't get the sentiment. I was not "mutated", I was not "violated", the only people creating stigma are people like you. It was not and has not ever been a big deal. For the record, this is where I drew the conclusion that you condoned the practice for non-medically-necessary …
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:05 AM
2

First of all, no movement, no group of people, is perfect. Every movement has its "crazies". I would agree that those individuals are here. But having read through the comments here, I believe that the majority of criticism being directed at you is not because you are circumcised but because you are condoning the practice on infants for reasons beyond medical need. I do not know your medical history so I will not try to refute your claim regarding your requirement to be circumcised, however, in …
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:44 AM
8

Here is a peer-reviewed study done into the deaths of infant boys directly attributed to circumcision. Here is the text of the article. This study was conducted according to sound research practices.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:36 AM
2

It's a blanket assumption of all women. The truth is that everyone has different preferences. There is a whole world out there populated with people who do not find it gross or unenjoyable.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:31 AM
8

Why? It's a genuine issue.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:25 AM
3

Your point is valid but assuming that it is true, I don't think it is entirely undeserved. This implies a varying degree of acceptability in that one form is more (or less) acceptable than the other; in this case, when it is done to girls versus boys. We call it mutilation in one case and tradition in the other. I will grant that it does no favors to the emotional condition of an individual to say that he or she is mutilated. But, realistically, that is the truth. But I cannot agree that the iss…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:14 AM
4

The procedures differ, but that's all. The mentality behind them are not. When one looks at why parents have it done to daughters and then look at why they have it done to sons, there's really no difference. In that vein, they are comparable. Plus, there are no varying degrees of acceptability. When you use that argument, you come across as saying that one form is not as bad as the other which implies that one is more acceptable than the other. Call me out on logical fallacies if you wish, but t…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:54 AM
1

Right here.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:46 AM
1

Actually, you were. Valid synonyms for mutate: to alter, change, modify, or transform. I only say this because it seems common to mix up the scientific definition of the word mutation meaning "change" with the popular one having to do with monsters or "freaks".
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:42 AM
138

Well, there is a series on violence against men. And the page you linked to has a "Violence Against Men" section in it. I think this is more of the semantics-style of inequality, but I have only just skimmed through the page, so I stand a good chance of being wrong.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 03:43 AM
2

Negative. The central argument is over a person's right to exercise control over their own body integrity. The value of health benefits is irrelevant to that argument. EDIT: Before any more people misunderstand this, I should have clarified to say that the health benefits I spoke of as being irrelevant do not include those gained from necessity. Prevention of STIs, UTIs, etc, are the things I was speaking of.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:53 PM
6

Blog post is permeated with appeals to faith, law, and non-sequiturs. His arguments are irrelevant.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:37 PM
1

Good for them. That is a determination for them to make for themselves. But it is not indicative or representative of the entire circumcised male population. And those within that population should not have their opinions discounted simply because they run contrary to yours, particularly since it concerns a practice which only affects them and not the people who decided to have it done to them.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 05:55 PM
1

It doesn't mean that one should assume that his/her child will want to be circumcised while they are at a stage before said child can even think. I would surmise that there is a very high likelihood that, left intact, a child would grow up to not give circumcision a second thought. Some would quite likely decide that they would prefer to have their foreskin removed, and that is, and should be, their choice and theirs alone.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 07:16 AM
1

There are a lot of people on /r/MR who are circumcised and wish it had not been done to them. The fact that there are people who were circumcised during such a young age and wish that they had not been is reason enough to ask, "Why even consider it in the first place?" The reported health benefits are not significant enough to justify performing this procedure on an individual who cannot object and who could very well wish, upon reaching an age when he can comprehend and decide, that his parents…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 01:22 AM
2

But there are people who do care, and rightfully so. It is not for others to decide what to do with a body that isn't their own.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 09:40 PM
2

Take it as a credit to the scientific method then. Science works by critiquing and analyzing until one explanation best explains the paradigm in question. Science does not work by blindly following publications. They must be torn down and analyzed, something which most, if not all, of the people here are not qualified to do. But that is precisely what skepticism is. To get real truth, everything must be questioned. More to the point, the data available is not sound enough in the face of improved…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:27 AM
4

The first bullet point on this pamphlet uses aesthetic reasons as a supporting argument. This argument is irrelevant. The second ascribes conditions of physical sensitivity to all men instead of acknowledging that degrees of sensitivity are not universal. I concede that some men may (and do) find a circumcised state to be preferable, but, since this argument fails to address medically necessary reasons, it is irrelevant. The next section uses a downplay of surgical risk to advocate circumcision.…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:14 AM
9

I would think education about STIs and encouraging prudence in who people have sex with would be far better long-term solutions. Personally, I am highly intrigued to see the outcome of this push to get men circumcised in Africa. I can't shake the feeling that a significant number of them have it done and then believe that they are immune to HIV.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 05:01 AM
11

A couple possible reasons. 1) They have grown accustomed to a society which does not see it as a big deal. It is simply business as usual for us. 2) They believe that there are benefits with no drawbacks to removing foreskin. 3) If FGM in included in the debate, then all too often, it gets framed as a moral equivocation. To them, since both male and female variants of genital mutilation exist, then if FGM is agreed as the worse of the two, MGM is acceptable. They either do not accept or do not r…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 03:51 AM
3

The principal argument is one of personal choice and how infant circumcision revokes that choice. There are many additional arguments that support banning such practices but they are, in and of themselves, other arguments. If the debate is framed in the deaths that are directly attributed to circumcision, then I can provide any number of situations that infants rarely die from but that are consistently decried as cruel and inhumane. But none of these are equivalent because I can't think of any o…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 09:14 PM
1

Check out the links on the sidebar. There are some resources that can get you started regarding the risks. As has already been said, it is an issue of depriving an individual of personal choice, regardless of the potential for harm. The principal argument does not revolve around what physical damages it causes, although that is certainly a topic in itself that people should work to increase awareness of. The issue of personal choice becomes all the more important because of the irreversible natu…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 07:49 PM
11

Just saw this moments ago. Common sense is out there a midst the cacophony.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 06:11 PM
3

I have a huge problem with this. Why must these practices be respected and allowed because they are religious? A great many people don't realize that justification on religious grounds is simply an excuse. Not quite an appeal to faith, it is more akin to the appeal to tradition or antiquity, that because something has been done for a long time (or because of its religious nature), it should be continued.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:07 AM
1

Anyone with a basic understanding of computers knows what you're doing. What is he doing, exactly, aside from distributing file archives? I don't like someone trying to use me and other men this way, at all. Download the files or don't, it's your choice. This is hardly "using" someone. I stand for an ethical and just mensrights, not a slimey doxxing adolescent one. Look, i like what you're doing if it gets feminists I think you have contradicted yourself. EDIT because I can't use a phone, appare…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 07:52 PM
5

I just commented on a thread about infant circumcision being compared (contrasted) with FGM and how people who engage in that line of arguing detract from the argument that infant circumcision is wrong by implying, whether they are aware of it or not, that it is a lesser of two evils type of choice that people should be able to make. It's a form of moral equivalence and is a recognized logical fallacy. Advancing arguments depends on the one making the point to stay on message and not get distrac…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:02 PM
11

The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control provide evidence that the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are markedly higher in uncircumcised men. But STD's aren't exclusive to uncircumcised men. Lack of judgement (read: forgoing testing) should not be a reason to promote this in my view. You don't know what decisions a newborn boy will make when he reaches sexual maturity, so talking to him about those dangers helps ensure he will make the right decisions i…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:25 PM
24

Given the number of circumcisions performed each year (in the US, at least) I would say that it is that difficult for people to understand. I was told that I was circumcised after birth for medical reasons, but turns out those reasons were the notion that men with foreskins have it more difficult than circumcised men. There was no immediate and critical medical need. As long as religious or cultural reasons exist, or complete misunderstanding of the facts persists, it will continue to happen. I …
/r/MensRights02/07/12 01:49 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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