TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

POSVT Archive

View 0 posts and 605 comments by POSVT 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

1 . MGM is a commonly performed medical procedure with recognized indications Minors can't consent to medical procedures Because of 2, consent is obtained from legal guardians Because of 1-3, parents can consent to circumcision None of that means that MGM is a good thing or should be done, these sre statements of facts and not values. Until you change 1 you can't change 4.
/r/MensRights16/02/26 02:30 AM
1

If a newborn can't give consent then they have no way of obtaining consent and it is wrong and a violation. No, that's not how consent works. Not morally, legally, or ethically. When people lack capacity (which is a technical term that means the cognitive ability to make their own medical decisions) and non-emergency care decisions need to be made, consent can be obtained from either a legally appointed medical power of attorney (MPOA) or their legal surrogate decision maker. This is defined by …
/r/MensRights16/02/26 12:47 AM
-1

It's not bullshit, it's just a fact. They had consent to perform the procedure. Newborns physically, literally can't consent to anything. So their parents consent on their behalf as their legal surrogate decision makers/guardians. Again, "medically necessary" doesn't matter, thats insurance language and not a relevant term here. The procedure was indicated and medically reasonable to perform. The AAP and AUA both say this commonly performed procedure is an indicated or medically reasonable inter…
/r/MensRights15/02/26 02:25 PM
-1

No, it doesn't. They had consent to do so as a necessary part of an indicated medical procedure. By definition, it is not and cannot be assault. And just because genitals are involved doesn't make it inherently sexual or sexual assault. Medical necessity is mostly insurance/payor jargon just FYI - the term also usually relates to things done to treat/evaluate/diagnose/etc an ongoing disease or condition rather than preventative care. When you see the term in medical notes it's there to keep insu…
/r/MensRights15/02/26 01:51 PM
2

I've never really felt this was a valid argument, honestly. Routine infant genital cutting is an outdated and barbaric practice that should be banned. There are some (rare) valid indications for circumcision or similar procedures but routine cosmetic genital cutting should not be a thing. I'm not going to waste any energy defending the practice, and I refused to participate or even observe MGM being done when I was a medical student. I don't work anywhere near peds/OBgyn currently but the friend…
/r/MensRights15/02/26 05:58 AM
3

What you doing in my waters?
/r/MensRights05/01/24 07:41 AM
-1

What healthy bodily functions are damaged? Other than the ejaculate not containing sperm....there's not a lot of difference. A vasectomy is not self harm. A vasectomy is a solution if a man does not want more/any children. It should be considered permanent sterilization, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Yes, men's reproductive rights should be recognized and protected. That's also a solution, but one that takes much much much longer to happen, with no guarantee it can be done at a…
/r/MensRights21/07/23 11:07 PM
0

That sounds very much like all abuse is identical, whether it is a slightly raised voice or other subjectively interpreted offense versus extreme physical violence. No it doesn't. It sounds nothing at all like that actually. This is the 3rd time addressing the same point... Let's sat I have two baskets. The first has 3 apples in it, and the other has 20 apples. One obviously has more than the other. Saying both baskets have apples in them is not saying 3=20. Whilst I don't agree with your assess…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 02:47 PM
1

I don't think anyone has said that all abuse is identical. In fact I was pretty clear that the opposite is true in my last comment. But it is all abuse and it is still unacceptable. I'm not going to claim that staff never abuse patients - they do. I'm not going to claim there is never retaliation or discrimination in healthcare - there is. But abuse of staff is incredibly extremely common. I don't know the specifics of your case, 'you' in examples below is a generic 'you'. There is some leeway f…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 01:28 PM
0

Yes and no - abuse of healthcare staff is extremely common. Every 2 hours in the US a nurse is assaulted. Physical assualt is more common for healthcare workers than it is for police or prison guards. Verbal abuse, harassment etc are even more common than that. Anyone who has worked for any period of time in healthcare will more than likely have firsthand experience with that. While it is absolutely possible, and even likely, that in many of these cases patients and family members are being abus…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 12:09 PM
0

There is definitely potential for abuse of the system. Outside of state/county run orgs like the VA, IHS, FQHCs/county clinics, most outpatient clinics are not govt employees or public servants, and don't have any obligation to serve anyone, physicians can refuse to keep seeing your for almost any reason, including just not getting along with you. They also have to rely closely on their nurses/staff and have every reason to believe then when they say they're being mistreated given the disgusting…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 06:09 AM
4

I'm sorry this is happening to you. It's standard practice to not record calls, as other patients private information may be audible in the background - while overhearing information in the background of a doctors office would be a legally excusable disclosure, a data breech of recorded calls probably would not be. You have a right to view your medical records, if they are documenting about the phone call in your records then you should be able to see that if you demand your medical records, whi…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 05:32 AM
1

The hippocratic oath is not a thing, and hasn't been for a long time. It is not a requirement to 'swear' any oath as part of medical school or the practice of medicine, nor is any oath you swear during graduation in any way binding. Generally, outside of emergent issues, physicians and healthcare workers are not obligated to provide service to anyone, or to continue a patient relationship. The physician-patient relationship in an outpatient clinic can be terminated by the office at any point - t…
/r/MensRights25/03/23 05:20 AM
1

It absolutely has everything to do with it...if you don't care about one person's actions then you aren't actually trying to determine who's responsible or who owes damages. The only way you can possibly actually think this: If she agreed or howled at the moon has nothing to do with causation of pregnancy or damages. Is if you've already made up your mind that it's the man's fault, and are here in bad faith. I'd say I'm surprised. But I'm not. Yeah there needs to be balance and right now women h…
/r/MensRights09/07/22 03:27 PM
1

Sweety first things first he agreed to it as well and actively shoot. So you agree that she agreed to it, and thus is responsible. Thanks. If there is access to abortion or not has absolutely nothing to do with who’s fault it is or who caused the pregnancy…….. Because "who's fault it is" a completely inane and stupid point only a moron would bring up. But since you're here, and since you brought it up, here we are. Rights must, morally, be balanced with responsibility. That's the only moral/ethi…
/r/MensRights09/07/22 01:39 PM
2

Nope, she allowed them in there. At the absolute most, it's 51/49 - it can't be 50/50 because she agreed to it, and it's her body. And in the US, it's 100/0, she's the only one with reproductive rights so she is the only one with reproductive responsibility. So you admit that you are full of shit. No, but you are.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 12:51 PM
1

You seem to think men can just teleport semen into people by magic without their knowledge or input. And come on, give only one example of a woman getting pregnant without a man…..just one. Who cares? The answer is not and will never be relevant. If she consented to sex & she got pregnant it was her choice to get knocked up, and nobody elses'.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 12:14 PM
2

No thanks. My understanding of human biology is fine. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand it. Take some physics classes while you're at it since you seem to believe teleportation is real.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 07:06 AM
2

So? Maybe you need to take a biology class. Nobody made her pregnant, she did it to herself. Pregnancy from consenual sex is always 100% the result of the woman's choice. Also get choice in many cases of rape given how often women are the rapist.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 06:16 AM
7

Nope. Assuming she chose to have sex, she got herself pregnant and has no one to blame but herself
/r/MensRights08/07/22 05:05 PM
6

You do know that conditions such as epididymitis, chronic prostatitis w chronic pelvic pain syndromes exist yeah? And that these are extremely painful and only affect men?
/r/MensRights12/05/22 06:00 AM
5

There is no ranking list of painful conditions that's based on any actual facts or science, just FYI. Nor is it fair to expect someone to work ~115-120% as much time and do harder work for the same pay and less benefits.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 05:57 AM
9

It's not equity either. If you took a year ofnwork with no other leave: Women work 10 months, men work for 12 months and work harder than women do since theyre picking up the slack of the female employees, both make the same amount. Work harder and longer for the same pay, because you're a man. By definition not equitable. If you paid the men more you might have a claim, but then you have people screeching about wage gaps.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 05:45 AM
10

Technical reversal and clinical reversal are vastly different things. Microsurgery to reconnect the vas is technically possible but clinical reversal i.e. successful pregnancy rates start decreasing immediately after the initial vasectomy procedure & continue to decline. This can be ~75% at 3 years, decreasing fairly linearly down to ~30% or less at 15 years. No one should get a vasectomy assuming it can be reversed successfully.
/r/MensRights04/05/22 05:06 AM
14

Yeah IDK how someone could live in western society and not see all the discrimination... pretty much requires wilful ignorance or very strong innate bias When the government basically decides they own your body... When your reproductive rights to freely decide when and how you become a parent don't exist and no one cares that the govt tries to force you into having children you don't want and being enslaved to support them for decades... When reproductive coercion by sexual assault isn't even co…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 09:36 PM
7

You do know heart attacks can be entirely painless, right? And that there's no objective scale of pain so that this comparison is entirely nonsensical? In any case, if you're not giving a similar benefit to men this is just straight up female privilege - an unearned benefit given on the basis of sex. If you think it's fair or appropriate to practice actual equality then you should also agree that the retirement age for women should be significantly increased by 5-10 years above the male retireme…
/r/MensRights23/04/22 09:13 AM
2

No, it isn't preposterous. It's pretty concerning that your so hateful you think men don't have a right to decide what conditions they consent to sex under. "I don't like this thing, I don't want to do it" with respect to sex is a sexual boundary. [Thing] can be anything, oral, anal, whatever. And yes, it can absolutely be "sex with a condom". Refusing to accept & acknowledge that is really creepy.
/r/MensRights17/04/22 07:34 AM
1

And if that weren't a lie you were making up, you might have a point. Actually no, because those are still 2 different groups of people, there's no hypocrisy there. Really, even if you weren't lying and it was the same group, it's still not hypocrisy - the right to freely male decisions about what conditions you consent to sex under & not wanting to be raped aren't contradictory positions. I get that it may be hard for you to grasp that, seeing how you don't consider men to be human beings deser…
/r/MensRights17/04/22 07:31 AM
3

This whole thread is about men feeling entitled to unprotected sex. Sure, except that this is a lie you made up. Unless you can quote many men in this thread literally saying they're owed unprotected sex, you're full of shit. What actually happened is that they have expressed a sexual boundary: sex with a condom is not enjoyable for me and I don't want to do that - I would rather not have PIV sex. You then twisted this into a nice easy to attack strawman. Do better.
/r/MensRights16/04/22 08:53 PM
4

"I don't want to" is absolutely a real, legitimate reason. Further, "No." is a complete sentence. You don't get to force other people to do things your way.
/r/MensRights16/04/22 08:42 PM
2

QED
/r/MensRights26/02/22 03:02 AM
4

I hope you're a troll and not actually this dense. The mother physically has to be at the delivery for obvious reasons. The father does not, and has no legal right to be there. He also can't be at a delivery he doesn't know about. If she wants to cut him out he has absolutely 0 recourse no matter what. She can vanish, give the baby away, and never speak another word to him and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. Legal motherhood is automatic. Legal fatherhood is not - it requires docume…
/r/MensRights25/02/22 02:54 PM
5

Dependence in the sense of substance abuse is a physiological issue separate from the addiction, which is itself a psychological Dependency. The two are not necessarily linked (e.g. a physiological dependency can exist without a psychological one & vice versa). I wish that alcoholism could be reduced down to two common factors but unfortunately that's not the case, though comorbid anxiety is very common & often at least a partial motivation. But there are many why's behind any kind of addiction.…
/r/MensRights31/01/22 06:29 PM
3

Pretty clearly demonstrated maladaptive behaviors facilitating use, continued behavior despite negative personal/social consequences, that she describes as irresistible, intrusive, uncontrollable despite attempts to do so & despite negative health consequences & is distressing & impairs her ability to function. If you swapped alcohol for sex in that scenario nobody would be quibbling over what to call it.
/r/MensRights31/01/22 05:43 PM
4

Was proposed but not included in the final version IIRC
/r/MensRights31/01/22 05:38 PM
10

DSM-V does not include the diagnosis, which you seem to be agreeing with? If you're referring to icd-9 & icd-10 good luck, those dx have been on the icd list in some form or another for >50 years now. Re:fMRI, no it absolutely can't be explained as high sex drive - both addicted and nonaddicted subjects demonstrated typical arousal findings but addicts also had activation in other areas consistent with addictive patterns/maladaption
/r/MensRights31/01/22 05:28 PM
2

How many men's locker rooms have you been in during these "story swaps" & high fiving? Player in this context is usually not positive. It's something you're warned about - "watch out for him, he's a player" Slut & whore are not typically censored AFAIK. Maybe on some nutjob subs? Idk.
/r/MensRights31/01/22 05:18 PM
8

Definitely a controversial topic in Healthcare, and especially among psychologists/psychiatrists. I tend to support it as a diagnosis & it does definitely exist in ICD9 & 10, which are international diagnostic codes, but was omitted from the DSM-V which most US based providers use. Addictions in general have similar patterns that sex addicted patients appear to fall into: impaired control over usage; social impairment, involving the disruption of everyday activities and relationships; and cravin…
/r/MensRights31/01/22 05:14 PM
1

I love how you think there’s some sort of audience here to read your utterly stupid comment It's a public forum dude, everyone can read it. And you provide a great example of how stupid most bigots are. What can I say, I like to teach. And I never said “racism was born in 1800s” fuckn dumbass, clearly they kept slaves way before that, I said western countries where systematically racist up until late 1900s, which makes them take the cake. Nope sorry. Quoted from your above comment in case you tr…
/r/MensRights08/12/21 07:49 AM
2

Again for those of you in the audience, this is another extremely common tactic of racists & other assorted bigots. When confronted with proof that their racist claims can't be true they become extremely desperate to deflect and present immature ego defenses, the cognitive dissonance & threat to the ego so heavily invested in their bigoted worldview demands it. Yes bring up shit from a thousand years ago to defend your races’ crimes from past two centuries Not that it matters, but not my race. A…
/r/MensRights08/12/21 06:52 AM
1

And for anyone following along, here is a great example of how racists and other bigots are absolutely ignorant of history and refuse to accept any fact that does not fit their narrative. Their worldview is rigid and inflexibile because their ideas are trash and can't stand up to scrutiny. Racism and supremacy predate the concept of "white people" as you understand it entirely. You'll find it in the ancient history of every continent and every group of people. Hell the idea of "barbarian" dates …
/r/MensRights08/12/21 05:45 AM
4

By the 1800s racism had already been around for several thousand years. Tribalism and racism are as old as humanity is, and the claim that's it's an invention of any one ethnic group is as stupid and ignorant of history as it is racist. Maybe you should study harder.
/r/MensRights08/12/21 02:15 AM
2

Medicine in the US is currently seeing an exodus at pretty much every level from techs to physicians. The state of the industry has changed such that fewer people are willing to sell their lives to work in it. I know for sure I'm not going past my 182, and cutting that down to probably a 1099 option in a few years.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 01:07 PM
4

You're right, it probably wouldn't. But this would never see the inside of a courtroom. No criminal charges would be brought since these are by definition false accusations that fall apart under the most basic scrutiny. And civil claims against the police are a non starter given the extreme resource cost & futility in the current legal climate of qualified immunity.
/r/MensRights03/08/21 11:52 AM
1

The court did know. Because he's 13. There is no way other than rape that he could be the father of her child. The court knew, and didn't care.
/r/MensRights21/06/21 05:46 PM
7

Ok boomer
/r/MensRights05/06/21 10:15 PM
8

No, they live in reality - a place you seem to never have visited. Women don’t feel safe walking down the street. Cant go out alone at night. Who gives a fuck? Your delusions are not anyone else's problem. Women are objectively at least risk walking down the street or out at night. Your fear is not consistent with reality. Treated as second class citizens by most religions. As opposed to being treated as second glass citizens by all governments and society in general, like men are? paid less by …
/r/MensRights05/06/21 09:17 PM
0

I'm not mad. mmmk "Now that we've reviewed 3rd grade English, let's move on." - Assumption and subjective opinion. Irrelevant to the topic. It's not an assumption, subjective is debatable but honestly not worth the discussion. And your inability to differentiate fact from opinion is highly relevant. "Your opinion on their lifestyle isn't relevant. " - It is. I don't have to accept or like it just like they don't have to accept or like ours. You don't have to like it, but it really doesn't matter…
/r/MensRights05/01/21 02:26 AM
2

Idk if you're trying to half ass quote me or just fucked up your formatting.... And if you're saying half the stupid shit - Cry me a river. Lol nah stay mad Opinions are not facts just like calling someone a homophobic buzzword. Very good, you managed to figure out that opinions are opinions and facts are facts! Now that we've reviewed 3rd grade English, let's move on. If person x is gay, that's a fact about them, just like of they are 5' 6" or have blue eyes. You don't get to disagree with that…
/r/MensRights04/01/21 10:50 PM
2

100%, worst I've seen in a while
/r/MensRights04/01/21 07:59 PM
3

No worries I had to read everything twice b/c I was thinking to myself that surely no one could be that dense...but the two of them could have their brains revolve in a peanut shell for a 1000 years without hitting the sides lmao
/r/MensRights04/01/21 07:56 PM
2

Calling a spade a spade is not insulting the spade. It's not rubbishing the spade. It's a factual description. The poster /u/thathighclassbitch is talking at is a homophobe. If you walk around saying all men are trash, it's not "rubbishing" to call you a sexist. If you walk around saying we should gas the jews, it's not rubbishing to call you a nazi. And if you're saying half the stupid shit /u/docb30tn is about gay people then yeah, you're a homophobe. It's not rubbishing or an insult to point …
/r/MensRights04/01/21 07:47 PM
2

LOL you didn't even bother to read anything that doesn't fit your sad little wannabe victim narrative. Well you've reached peak irony...because you very clearly didn't even look at the actual report and just literally made shit up. Peak femcel. https://i.imgur.com/nRzo8Rt.png You might want to actually screenshot the thing being talked about...j/s Unwanted sexual contact (not including penetration which you love to focus on) : 94.9% male perpetrators only Table 3.8: Unwanted sexual contact exper…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 07:01 AM
2

And again, if you define rape such that only men can do it (e.g. victim must be penetrated)...that's what you get. Add on to that the massive privilege women as a class have in the legal system, and the gigantic stigma against male victims of female violence (86% of male victims aren't believed at all, abused men are more likely than their abuser to be arrested when calling the police for help)....crime stats are functionally useless to answer the question. Try looking at the CDC's NISVS survey.…
/r/MensRights04/11/20 08:22 AM
2

Men are a slight majority of rape victims, and women about 40-45% of rapists. That of course assumes you don't define rape in such a way that only men can do it, but if you use an actual non bigoted definition of rape...yeah. But yeah, Brock was actually treated much much much harsher than most female rapists.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 10:15 PM
1

Yes and no. Generally a request for a physician of the same sex will be honored if possible, but usually only for intimate exams. If you're coming in because you have the flu and don't want to see a male doc, you're probably shit out of luck. Race is a very different issue and one that I don't compromise on. If a patient doesn't want to be seen by me because of the color of my skin, they're not getting anyone else. Likewise, if they don't want to see a colleague because of the color of their ski…
/r/MensRights24/09/20 11:42 AM
1

Sigh My thoughts exactly. This isn't a "risk of injury" question. It's not a chance. By sitting on a chair your lumbar spine takes excess pressure, which damages it. Look at how many people suffer from lower back pain in their 40s onwards, or even earlier, and how prevalent they are among those working in office environments. It's a widely acknowledged topic thay sitting destroys the lumbar spine. MILLIONS suffer from often debilitating backpain because of this. It's not a small risk. It's almos…
/r/MensRights18/08/20 05:11 PM
0

This is a VERY valid argument. Hundreds of thousands of people EACH YEAR are diagnosed with various debilitating back injuries, as well as obesity, cardiovascular problems, etc because they live a sedentary life, and SPECIFICALLY because they sit more than 6 hours a day. In contrast I can count on my two hands how many people have died SINCE THE 1980s as a direct result of anabolic steroid ABUSE (not use - these individuals used it in dosages that were hundreds of times higher than what is natur…
/r/MensRights18/08/20 01:50 PM
1

Honestly I agree to an extent, with symptoms and low or low-normal range T on 2 correctly done levels I'd lean towards treating depending on age/risk factors/severity & type of symptoms. But generally guidelines recommend both low levels and symptoms to initiate treatment, but part of Medicine is knowing when to go outside the guidelines. T is not a benign med and needs careful monitoring though
/r/MensRights18/08/20 01:33 PM
1

There are many medications which can be taken for specific indications at specific dosing ranges and usually for limited time periods without significant safety problems. Those are "over the counter" meds. There aren't really any hormones that fit that bill, and definitely not T. Tbh I'd rather make estrogen or t4 or pred otc first. Lay people inarguably don't have the knowledge or training to safely take these drugs - hell I honestly don't trust some doctors to manage them. Adverse events of T …
/r/MensRights18/08/20 07:04 AM
5

Hormones, and particularly steroid hormones are potent and dangerous medications that should only be taken under the care and monitoring of a physician. It's nonsensical to think that lay people should have free access to these drugs (yes, that goes for estrogens too). Testosterone especially needs to be carefully monitored for adverse affects on the CNS, CVS, prostate, heme etc
/r/MensRights17/08/20 11:56 PM
1

Premature ejaculation has 3 main elements to the diagnosis: Brief ejaculatory latency. This is the time from initiation of intercourse to ejaculation, and while there is some controversy over the exact timing, less than 1 min is the current consensus AFAIK with some studies suggesting up to 2min to be considered also. Loss of control. A consistent inability to control or delay ejaculation Psychological distress as a result of the above in the male &/or their partner(s)
/r/MensRights07/08/20 03:42 AM
7

Hoooo boy you sure kicked that strawman full of shit you made up to death. Strong work sport.
/r/MensRights29/02/20 11:17 AM
2

Even if that is true that has no bearing on whether it's helpful, confusing, or whatever. Except that it does...having been found to be useful and helpful by professionals for decades. Something being a standard absolutely is relevant. So why have two different terms for the same thing? What was wrong with just saying 'mental illness' in the first place? The intersection of technical fields ends up with redundant terms. Like general psych and disability law/policy. Yes, that's exactly what I'm s…
/r/MensRights10/01/20 03:43 PM
1

It's been the standard in the field for decades. Mental illness and psychiatric disability are used interchangeably in that specific technical context, because practically they mean the same thing. Downs syndrome is a genetic disorder that does cause cognitive impairment, not really a mental illness as it's currently understood. The ADA was passed in 1990, there haven't really been much in the way of earth shattering changes.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 02:50 PM
2

Mental illness, like many other diseases, illnesses, and disorders can be severe enough to constitute a disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Fact sheet from ADA national network
/r/MensRights10/01/20 12:33 PM
0

We are not of your same class karen, keep up your interests with yourself. Ok? No of what is discussed yet. Suuuuure. Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch. Degeneration is for sold off cucks like you those work with CPS. Again Karen, sod off. Lol @ cucks...is that really all incels and alt righties can come up with? Do you really think that one stings? I guess if you wrap your entire identity up in what women think of you it must. I don't work with CPS. If you were capable of passing a 2nd gr…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 09:17 PM
0

I'm sure everyone seems like a quick learner compared to you my dude. I know exactly what you're interested in, and it's still sick. Help is out there if you ever feel like not being a degenerate.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 08:46 PM
0

By asking you to read something you enviously didn't? Or just seeing what you want to see instead of what's there I guess
/r/MensRights06/12/19 08:22 PM
0

Nope. Try reading real slow and maybe it'll sink in. Give it a few minutes and let me know if you need help
/r/MensRights06/12/19 08:02 PM
0

More incoherent nonsense. Maybe try waking up a little more before you write something. Wait, you mean to say you like dicks, Nope. but not some of it? Some of what? Are you August Ames ? Nope.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 07:11 PM
0

Wow!!! so politically correct! You sucked someone's dick once in your life, does that make you gay? Nope, and I'm not. Why do you care? I wouldn't be interested in you even if I did like dudes. lol It's good you can laugh at yourself. lol. I'm enjoying women, amn't I ? I thank god every day that I'll never know the answer to that. And I pray for women everywhere that nobody ever will. Whhaat is a lolcow Karen, teach us your ways Karen.... You is a lolcow. Go to drama, tell I sent you and they'll…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 06:48 PM
0

You were given enough proof that the system you support is vehemently against parents and is definitely against basic human rights many a times. It proved, people are punished in court. Nope, you didn't prove anything even remotely close to that. Nothing at all. You don't need more explanations Karen or Benny, you need ridicule. You need ridicule to correct yourself your of your own selfish interests, myopia and utopia. So you're full of shit, you know it, and you're so mad about it that all you…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 06:26 PM
0

lol. your post what concerns me is what you discussed with me Karen. I don't have to go through it, you gave out enough breadcrumbs with your illogical thought process. Worked on basic levels in medicine, later shifted out to totally different profitable field. So, stop femsplaining Karen. Your inability to understand something doesn't make it illogical friendo. And apparently the basics slipped right out of your head. Femsplaining isn't a thing I could possibly due. Really, it's not a thing at …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 05:47 PM
0

lolz. unfortunately, cat is out of bag now, you are all knowledgeable on the topic of your primary interest (not about CPS and child safety, but drugs, your passion!). Teach us about your ways Karen!!! This is gonna be real hard for you, but maybe think about other reasons somebody might know extremely basic pharmacology. If you had paid any attention when you creepily stalked my post history you'd already know the answer. Here's a hint - it starts with M and ends with D. I'm also not a Karen, o…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 05:15 PM
0

Well since I don't do any opioids I've never used it. But I order it all the time, though usually they're not tripping balls like you are.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 04:45 PM
0

Anybody have some narcan? I think this ones stuck in a loop
/r/MensRights06/12/19 04:10 PM
1

No u
/r/MensRights06/12/19 03:53 PM
0

Ok boomer. Put down the fentanyl
/r/MensRights06/12/19 03:33 PM
0

Ok boomer
/r/MensRights06/12/19 03:21 PM
0

Oh druggie, you are so utopian. You only had one comment, no body responded to your comment, no body noticed your shitty response to keep your petty job safe, you have total of one vote. That is yours only. lolz. what a miserable life druggies live. Lol, are you capable of anything besides "No u"? Or did you cook the part of your brain capable of original thought? Comment was more than +1 last I looked but c'est la vie. My job is at 0 risk, and definitely not because of anything to do with CPS b…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 03:07 PM
1

lol. No body cared really, did they ? hahaha... Upvoted and agreed with so... Blah blah... Sry to say that my experience in this field is nil because of occupational reasons. Hope your boss is too dumb to test for fentanyl or you're more sane at work lol For each their own, keep your own drug driven delusions medical field cps lout. Cool, more projections. Seems the drugs and the hate have fried what's left of your brain. Good luck kicking that drug habit.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:48 PM
0

Oh, stop it already, Karen. "I don't have a point so I'm gonna try and fail to be glib". If you're gonna try to insult someone it should at least make sense. As much as there are threads in r/pussypassdenied So less of a r/mensrights supporter, more misogyny. Nice, maybe try r/beatingwomen or whatever incel forum on voat y'all hang out on. Still so much obsessed with all these chemicals, aren't you ? Well your toxidrome is a weird one, maybe I'm just an idealist but I doubt you can get as brain …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:28 PM
0

There are thousands of people that will tell you about how vaccines cause autism or are made of dead fetuses, give you mercury poisoning etc etc. A human is smart, people are dumb panicky animals and you know it. Anecdotes are not data and are not relevant. At all. Not even if you had 10 million. If you are supporting this kind of system which pry and sell off innocent children from loving families destroying many lives, you are a part of that serious crime against humanity. May be you are being…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:03 PM
0

See you're not even making sense anymore. Ranting and raving about feminasty and femcunt and parasites...even conspiracy theorists make some sense. Seriously, I hope they don't drug test because you'd pop positive for everything. So, you a pedo enabler, calling those who are fight against it and putting torch at your eyes pedo ? Nice try CPS lout. Oh, nope. You're just a pedo - I thought that was the theme of your fever dream today, accuse people of horrible things with 0 basis or reason behind …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 12:44 PM
-1

Well at least you tried, but links to MR posts are not a source. I'll see if any of those articles are worth anything in the morning. The first 4 may have something tbh. Your immature name calling and vapid behavior can probably traced back to being an enabler to these kind of crimes against humanity? Pot calling the kettle black. At least try to have some integrity. Though I imagine that's a challenge for you what with all the pedo stuff you support. When you are asking for statistics, are you …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 10:50 AM
0

You may be also trying to hide data with such blanket statements. Because when anecdotes turns out be be majority, that exposes the stupidity of the system. If, not when. And unless you have something better to add, that 'if' is not a likely one. BULLSHIT, there were multiple reports on their disastrous activities, even a case was exposed where they teamed up to hand over children to foster families who eventually made those children's life into sexual abuse etc. User DougDante , here if am not …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 10:08 AM
0

They are profiting from their jobs and are justifying their existence with wrong statistics. CPS's existence is more than justified, and they're pretty heavily overworked and underpaid. They're salaried usually, they have no financial incentives to take kids. It actually usually costs the system a lot more to do so. That again is print format response, real world is different. No, it's not a print format response. Try a little harder. The real world doesn't reflect your biased view. People on re…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 09:15 AM
0

CPS staff and women's studies idiots aren't profiting off anything. Breaking up families is a last resort and not something that's easy to do. Nor is it something that happens without evidence. Removal orders require hearings and not half hearted hunches. A child in an abusive home after an accusation is made is an incredibly high risk situation that thousands of children die from yearly, emergency removals happen this way because they are emergencies where the child's life and health are major …
/r/MensRights06/12/19 08:44 AM
-2

No, there really isn't. Nobody's profiting from this except maybe the lawyers. These are not easy cases and it's never an easy call to make - but if you even suspect child abuse as a doctor, you're morally, ethically and legally obligated to report it. One of my med school mentors is a child abuse pediatrician. She does brutal, ugly and often thankless work. She's been wrong on calls before, and she'll be wrong again - doctors aren't gods and they aren't perfect. But suggesting some kind of orga…
/r/MensRights06/12/19 04:17 AM
3

It's how /r/science operates - personal anecdotes are against their rules rule 3 Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed. Big or popular threads often get this mod sticky at the top: Welcome to r/science! You may see more removed comments in this thread than you are used to seeing elsewhere on reddit. On r/science we have strict comment rules designed to keep the discussion on topic and about the posted study and related research. This means that comments that attempt to confirm/deny…
/r/MensRights27/11/19 05:08 AM
2

Exogenous hormone supplementation? Yeah...that actually is highly dangerous with serious morbidity and mortality risks. And 50% of all graduates of everything were in the bottom half....so what? If they pass their boards and get through residency they've more than proved themselves.
/r/MensRights03/11/19 03:35 AM
2

No, it really isn't... And no, people actually don't have the legal right to take whatever drugs they want, especially when the drugs they want are stupidly powerful and dangerous. No, you can't have merropenem whenever you want, or linezolid, or hydromorphone or pembrolizumab etc etc. Medical school and residency does make you an expert in subjects like physiology and pharmacology. While not an endocrinologist, a huge part of any doctor's training is learning how to effectively research and bru…
/r/MensRights03/11/19 03:01 AM
2

Honestly, as somebody that has to take care of the cirrhotics when they finally start towards the finish line of drinking themselves to death...I wouldn't shed a single tear. I imagine most people would be fairly surprised what constitutes high risk drinking behavior for alcohol abuse. A very high proportion is. Using steroids without the supervision and recommendation of a physician is definitely abuse, and unsafe. That said, the two drugs aren't really comparable like that, with wildly differe…
/r/MensRights03/11/19 02:21 AM
2

Not really, no.
/r/MensRights01/11/19 11:39 AM
1

Testosterone and other anabolic hormones are considered drugs of abuse due to their illicit use in sports/bodybuilding/etc, which is why they're tightly controlled due the risks of unsupervised use. The petition incorrectly states this was a mistake/misconception, but that's really not the case. While testosterone does have other well recognized medical uses, those aren't nearly as common as those for estrogen/progestins, which are extremely commonly used in women during their childbearing years…
/r/MensRights01/11/19 01:56 AM
1

This is ridiculous, you know exactly what's meant by "deadliness" in this context, total number of deaths. your trying to derail the debate with semantics. No, you're using shitty vague language and getting called on it. Use correct terminology if you don't like it. Yes, because they dilute the mortality rate, which you are using to present a very twisted and disingenuous narrative. it doesnt matter if prostate cancer has a higher survival rate if the total number of deaths is higher. it only ha…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 09:48 PM
1

Asked and answered
/r/MensRights24/08/19 09:39 PM
-1

You're jsut going in circles and not making any sense. You did NOT quote me correctly, you intentionally tried to change what i had said. You can lie about it all you want, but the reality won't change. If prostate cancer has such a high mortality rate compared to other cancers, then how is it possible for it to be the second biggest cancer killer of men? It doesnt have a high mortality rate, I'm assuming that's a typo or something but seriously, read posts before replying & submitting. The answ…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:37 AM
-1

how many people die from cancer definitely means something...that is what it means. what are you talking about? deadly/deadliness is vague, imprecise, and completely useless in this context. It can mean multiple different conflicting things. Thus, functionally meaningless and incoherent. no, not what i said. i said number of cases that result in death are more common than number of cases that result in death for other cancers, with mathematically must be true if prostate cancer causes more death…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:28 AM
1

what?? this is ridiculous, how can deadliness not mean anything when talking about cancer deaths?? that makes no sense...of course its a statistic, its a measurement of many people die from a type of cancer... No, deadliness is absolutely not a stat. What does it mean? Is it time to death from diagnosis? Is it overall mortality? Long term survival? Morality rate? Mortality only in downtown Chicago when mercury is in retrograde? Who the hell knows. Specific, technical words that convey precise me…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:23 AM
-2

Yes, it really is. Total number of deaths is absolutely the best way to measure how deadly a cancer is... No, it isn't. And "how deadly" doesn't mean anything at all. That's not what I said, I said prostate cancer has a higher total number of cases, and that the number of benign cases is higher than the total cases of many other cancers. No, what you actually said was what I quoted. Let's look again, emphasis mine: The total number of deaths is the more relevant bit. The mortality rate isn't rea…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 04:56 AM
0

But this doesn't take into account the fact that because the prevalence is so much higher, the total number of deaths might be still higher, despite the majority of cases being slow growing. Yes, it does. That's why total number of deaths is such a misleading number, because it falsely paints a disease as much more threatening than it actually is. Long term survival is more helpful to identify where we need to be most aggressive. I mean just look at actual clinical practice, what do you think ne…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 04:37 AM
-1

I'm going to answer this to correct the misinformation in your comment. No, you aren't. Because you're the one spreading misinformation as I've pointed out multiple times now. But let's see what fresh BS you've got. No, this is not what happened,a "no,u" is not an actual thing. You described me as doing what you were doing. My pointing that out is not a "no,u", it's simply what happened. Nope. Try reading the thread. No, you are wrong, only 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. You are wr…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 04:22 AM
-2

The total number of deaths is the more relevant bit. The mortality rate isn't really the best way to measure a cancer because you have to compare the sample size to- prostate cancer is like this because slower growing cases are very common, but the more serious cases are still more numerous than most other cancers. No, it's really not. Both are helpful, but 5 year survival is a more practical and useful stat for a variety of reasons. And no, advaned prostate cancer is ~10% of new diagnoses, or a…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 03:52 AM
0

Prevalence refers to how widespread a disease is, aka a snapshot vs incidence which refers to the probability of getting a disease in a set timeframe. Annual mortality is neither, and is misleading for diagnoses like these with high incidence and high survival - the vast majority of men are diagnosed above age 65 & live for decades with the disease. It's also dishonest to compare the two given that 1) cervical cancer actually has a great screening tool which 2) was so effective it obliterated th…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 03:34 AM
-2

It is clear to me that you are not participating in good faith, and after this comment I will no longer engage in this discussion with you Sorry, reverse card denied. I'm not the bad faith actor here when your entire post is built on bullshit. I know you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and that's why you're trying this cheap cop out. Do better. This is what you are doing right now- you're presenting a completely illogical and disingenuous interpretation of the data to a narrative that makes no …
/r/MensRights24/08/19 03:18 AM
1

But none of this changes the fact that prostate cancer is the cancer a non-smoking man is most likely to die from..just because there happen to be so many 'extra' and slower growing cases which water down the mortality rate, doesn't change the bottom line- prostate cancer is the cancer a nonsmoking man is most likely to die from, and the second biggest cancer killer of men overall. No, it's still the 2nd most common. Lung cancer, even among non smokers is still more common (about a third of lung…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 02:05 AM
0

Ok, but again - the 15 year survival rate for all prostate cancer is 96%. That mortality rate is not misleading, 5, 10, 15 years after diagnosis very very few people are dying from that cancer - you're more likely to die with a prostate cancer than from one, the majority are indolent, localized neoplasms. The majority of deaths come from advanced stage cancers, which are relatively rare. Also prostate cancer, while being the 2nd most common type of cancer to die from, only represents about 10% o…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:19 AM
5

That may have something to do with there not being an effective screening tool for prostate cancer. US preventative services taskforce (USPSTF) recommends against routine PSA screening as there's moderate evidence that the net benefits are very small, if there is any. For men older than 70 there is moderate or high certainty that the harms outweigh the benefits. For men aged 50-69 an individual discussion is recommended to decide whether to pursue screening or not. PSA is also not that great of …
/r/MensRights23/08/19 08:45 PM
2

I'd argue AUA definitely outranks AAP on the issue, in the same way the American College of Cardiology outranks the American College of Physicians (general IM group) when talking about heart failure. ACOG would be on about equal footing to slightly less prominent along with AAFP on this issue IMO as a physician. It's in both of their scopes to perform the procedure often (In ACOGs case, much more often than pediatricians & FPs combined).
/r/MensRights19/08/19 09:07 AM
3

Not quite true. AUA (American Urological Association) policy affirmed 10/2018. ACOG (American College of Obestrics & Gynecology) has this FAQ posted 6/2017 but no formal policy that I can find. AAP policy from 2012 is still up on their site, though there is a footnote at the bottom about it expiring in 2017. AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) has this policy dated 5/2018. The AAFP policy is the most worrisome to me - they explicitly cite the garbage evidence for MGM and the estimated r…
/r/MensRights19/08/19 08:41 AM
0

No, I'm saying the numbers they aggregated are meaningless because their methodology is shit. The definition of error they used is so broad as to be meaningless - any action which fails to achieve it's intention for any reason is an error. Their definition makes their data worthless. There are more problems with the study design, but that's a fatal flaw all on its own.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 01:08 PM
2

AA definitely exists at every stage of the medical field - all the way from med school applications to getting a job as a board certified attending physician. Idk why you think the presence of AA would lead to botched surgeries or whatever - the admissions criteria used by US MD/DO schools have almost no bearing with ultimate clinical success as a physician. Nothing that's on your application is even remotely relevant to how well you can learn and practice medicine. Source: MD
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:53 AM
0

While the OC's point is wrong....so is that paper. Medical errors aren't even in the top 5. Hopkins should be ashamed to have submitted that rag for publication.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:50 AM
2

The hopkins "study" is a pile of hot garbage. If you look at the methodology their definition of error is so broad as to be meaningless. The study is methodologically incapable of supporting the author's conclusion with any degree of relevance.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:48 AM
9

Local anesthesia is sometimes used, but is also laughably inadequate analgesia for the procedure. Infiltrative anesthetics like lidocaine, xylocaine, etc first inhibit thin pain bearing nerve fibers which carry sharp sensations - they do not affect thicker fibers. Pediatric doses are often inadequate for complete analgesia of sharp sensations, and do absolutely nothing for the crush and ischemic injury commonly found in most circumcisions. In addition, as the injury progresses the surrounding ti…
/r/MensRights07/08/19 10:32 PM
1

Fair enough, cya
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:47 AM
0

I mean you can disagree that water is wet...but this is a topic that has literal regulatory definitions for what it applies to that this objectively meets, and that someone who deals with the subject regularly is telling you applies. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink - you can disagree, but that disagreement is not based on the facts. It's not a matter of opinion. Being banned from human subjects research until completing training is the essence of fair. It's also require…
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:37 AM
2

It's fine to disagree, but this isn't really something that's up for debate. Their project is very obviously covered by federal research regs, they got smacked for violating those and need to do training to satisfy federal and institutional requirements. Believe me, I've had to sit through enough of these trainings. It qualifies as human subject research.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:25 AM
1

IDK about you, but when I try to get an article published I'm not doing so in a bad faith effort to secretly collect data on the practices of those journals as part of a human subjects research project. I'm definitely not trying to publish two dozen at once in different journals in bad faith, mostly because I'm not nearly that productive. I'm mostly just trying to maximize impact factor while minimizing fees and bullshit. I also poke people in the belly pretty much daily. But if I started secret…
/r/MensRights28/07/19 01:30 AM
1

Oh, please, man, that’s weaksauce right there. The IRB standards for conducting research on human subjects are intended to protect the unwitting public from researchers who fail to consider their wellbeing in their research. To suggest that these editors’ wellbeing was harmed by this project in the same ways that an actual research subject could be is a very far stretch indeed. No, it's really not. Even research which may cause a few minutes of mild distress or discomfort to subjects must be IRB…
/r/MensRights28/07/19 01:10 AM
2

They submitted fake papers for publishing in journals to study what they could get those journals to publish - the human subjects are the journal's reviewers/editors that select articles, and their responses to stimuli were the subject of the project. NIH & HHS have some useful resources on the subject. Human subjects research is defined as Research involving a living individual about whom data or biospecimens are obtained/used/studied/analyzed through interaction/intervention, or identifiable, …
/r/MensRights27/07/19 11:38 PM
3

The university is probably more worried about their research funding being yanked for unapproved human subjects research. The project is question is unarguably human research and so pretty much without exception has to be approved by an IRB. Banning from further human subject research until properly trained is the correct move. Had the project team done their training they would have known they needed approval & sought it. It likely would have been granted, as similarly structured projects have …
/r/MensRights27/07/19 09:57 PM
1

He was rightfully investigated for misconduct, because there was misconduct. He was conducting research using human subjects. TBH the project was a really good one and I had a good laugh over the articles they got published. It highlights the systemic issues with gender studies as a field. But there is an ethically mandated process that they circumvented. I've done research during undergrad, grad school, and in post-grad training and had to take the same (or substantially similar) course on rese…
/r/MensRights27/07/19 09:52 PM
0

He can say whatever he wants, he was objectively doing research. It wasn't an "audit" or a protest or a social experiment. He was conducting research using human subjects. I've done research during undergrad, med school, and in post-grad training and had to take the same (or substantially similar) course on research/human subjects multiple times. It's a standard institutional & legal requirement, and can screw with funding for the entire university if not done. The university has an institutiona…
/r/MensRights27/07/19 09:34 PM
0

First of all, if i or any other man wants or would prefer a male doctor, he has that right. Of course you do. Just like you have the right to demand a white doctor, or one who can whistle the star spangled banner, or one who trained as a ninja in the swiss alps. You can request whatever, but there's generally no obligation to accommodate requests outside of very specific circumstances (e.g. sensitive exams), which even then is typically a matter of hospital/clinic policy. You get the doctor you …
/r/MensRights24/07/19 03:26 AM
1

So as a male doctor this is not a great idea for several reasons 1 - it's not going to work. Even if all the people subbed here did this every time they went to the doctor, it ould take at least a decade to see a meaningful shift in the # of male MDs...which is about half, anyway. Nursing would be faster to turn around, but is less likely to care. 2 - it's ideologically dumb. It's the exact same type of bullshit that gets mocked and torn apart on here if the genders were swapped. 3 - if I'm the …
/r/MensRights24/07/19 03:14 AM
1

Why does any medicine exist? Every single drug that exists has some dangerous or damaging side effect if it's misused. One of the most commonly given medicines in hospitals are electrolyte replacements, but if given, say, potassium improperly you die - it's literally part the standard lethal injection series. Give it to fast and it burns your veins. If you get a certain antibiotic as a child (or your mom does while pregnant) your bones turn grey/black. If you give a pregnant mother a certain blo…
/r/MensRights12/06/19 04:39 AM
1

They are acceptable reasons though. Treating different people differently is not sufficient for a 14A claim. If it was, gendered dress codes wouldn't exist, nor would gendered bathrooms or locker rooms. Abortion would be illegal, women would never have been exempt from the selective service or the draft. Federal organizations couldn't publish gendered recommendations - say bye to screening guidelines for pap smears, prostate cancer screening, etc. No biological difference justifies enslaving bla…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 03:43 PM
1

Biological differences. The law/courts currently reflect the mainstream (incorrect) belief that MGM & FGM are massively different and not comparable. Additionally until the FDA revokes the routine MGM from the current indications it remains an accepted medical procedure. Plus AUA, AAP, CDC etc policy positions not outright condemning it. The big loophole in 14A here are the bio differences, and until we change a lot of the things above the 14A argument is DOA.
/r/MensRights17/05/19 06:30 PM
1

We give new born girls mastectomies? Appendix is also something that will have consent given before it’s removed. Go back and read the part you're replying to. Quoted below, emphasis added. As an aside - we absolutely do prophylactic surgery "against future potentialities". Just because that isn't the case with MGM doesn't mean it isn't a thing 14 amendments has to be one of the biggest starters if we want true equality. But it doesn't apply here. There is no 14A argument to be made. It's not a …
/r/MensRights17/05/19 01:23 PM
2

There are still several US orgs that are supportive of MGM, AUA being one of them. CDC & AAP haven't walked their policy positions back far enough for me to move them out of the "support" column. As an aside - we absolutely do prophylactic surgery "against future potentialities". Just because that isn't the case with MGM doesn't mean it isn't a thing. Prophylactic mastectomies are a good example - but also, it's not uncommon in some cases to remove the appendix during surgery even if it appears …
/r/MensRights17/05/19 01:06 PM
1

K
/r/MensRights10/05/19 08:30 PM
1

Brian Morris seems more like your crowd tbh
/r/MensRights10/05/19 05:23 PM
1

yeah, i'll be protesting with those guys again in a couple of weeks. *Doubt* they sure don't seem to agree with your assessment of my arguments. In the unlikely event you're not lying still, I suggest you actually tell them all your arguments, so they can properly denounce you as the pro-MGM shitheel you are.
/r/MensRights10/05/19 01:16 AM
1

lol, no. You're the one spreading pro-circ propaganda around here. You're like the paid shills during election campaign but you honestly seem more like a useful idiot. Say whatever you want about me or the level of care you think I provide - it doesn't matter, because your opinion on those things is meaningless because it's not based on anything but your rantings and ravings. If you ever decide to stop supporting the mutilation of healthy babies and pull your head out of your ass, https://www.do…
/r/MensRights09/05/19 06:32 PM
1

Nope, of the two of us only you support genital mutilation. My idea of medical care is primarily based on facts and evidence, not whatever feverdream I had last week.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 06:08 PM
1

Considering your idea of medical care is basically this....
/r/MensRights09/05/19 06:03 PM
1

Nope. Mr. Gumble, I presume?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 05:23 PM
1

On the one hand, you're definitely an expert on being wrong. But on the other, you're still wrong here so . . . .oof
/r/MensRights09/05/19 05:06 PM
1

Dude this entire chain has been one big "nuh uh" from you. But don't let that get in the way of jerking yourself off! wonder if you'll use the word differently with patients now. I'll continue to use it correctly, as I've been doing for years i truly hope for their sake you don't have any, though. Aw, how sweet. I hope for everyone's sake you stop promoting circumcision some day.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:51 PM
1

yes likely. it's both complete and correct. Mmmm, nope. It's incomplete and incorrect. Oops. it provides the technical definition, Nope, as has been established multiple times whereas you are trying to instead use the layperson definition. Nope, that would be you. Strong work there sport. Making your pro-MGM bosses proud.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 07:02 AM
1

For technical terms that also have non technical meanings? Unlikely. In this context, where the lay dictionary is incomplete & incorrect? No.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 03:53 AM
1

Hmmm, no. Here's what's on the online version An approved use for any therapeutic intervention or drug, e.g., in the U.S., a use that has met the standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Not as complete as the text version, but c'est la vie
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:39 PM
1

You provided 0 sources. A link to a layperson dictionary is not a source. It's nothing. nothing you've provided has been attributed to anybody but yourself. Newp.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:38 PM
1

Tabers
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:15 PM
1

Nope, 0 to 2. You haven't provided any sources
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:14 PM
1

You know what, here's a bonus - An approved use for any therapeutic, diagnostic or preventative intervention, drug, or device e.g., in the U.S., a use that has met the standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:27 PM
1

You've provided 0, I've provided 1
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:16 PM
3

There's actually modest data supporting the link between circumcision and reduced UTIs. That said, UTIs shouldn't be an acceptable reason for permanent surgery when antibiotics exist. There's still a trend to consider all UTIs in men complicated, however this is dying out thanks to changes in recommendations by urology & infectious disease groups.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 08:32 PM
1

all you've provided is your own say-so. No, my teachers attendings, colleagues, the years of training, etc. And all you've provided is....nothing, no sources, your say so is worthless. the fact that you use the word incorrectly Mmm, except I didn't. But good job continuing the lying. in your own practice is an (wait for it) indication that people probably shouldn't trust your practice. not an indication that you're correct. Holy shit, you actually managed to use the word indication correctly! St…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:42 PM
1

Your own sources say they're invalid. I've told you multiple times how actual doctors use "Indication" in clinical practice. I do it every day. My source is 4 years of med school. And no, I'm not going to go dig a med term book out of my garage (assuming I haven't sold or given it away tbh) to validate you. You can either accept things as they are, or continue with your delusions. You're not helping anybody, and you shit on your entire movement by being one of the vocal nutjobs in it. Honestly I…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:19 PM
1

Jesus dude....you're really doubling down on the stupid here. None of your definitions are valid - you're using "Refusal to accept something" to talk to electricians about electrical resistance. You have yet to actually provide a definition not for lay people (aka incomplete at best, wrong most of the time), nor use an actual correct definition that I provided. cancer.gov, merriam-webster, and free dictionary are not valid sources. RIP. Your definitions don't even agree with each other.....you h…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 05:06 PM
1

no, it's not ONLY a reason to do a thing. it has to be a CONDITION that the patient PRESENTS WITH. No, it is not a condition the patient presents with. I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. It's the reason why we do a thing in medicine. out of the two of us, it seems you're the only one unable to understand medical terminology. No, that's still you. Stay tuned for a great example. prophylaxis is NOT a condition. Correct. a medical indication MUST be a condition. Incorrect. An indicati…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:32 PM
1

you did not ever provide a definition of "medical indication". I did. More dishonesty, or you just don't read. IDK which An indication is a valid reason to do something. In the context of medicine, that would be an exam, test, surgery, giving a medication, etc. here's a real one again: Nope, rejected as above. a medical indication is a CONDITION that the patient PRESENTS WITH. NO, it is ACTUALLY a MEDICAL reason to DO a thing. it's not something you hope to achieve, it's a condition they already…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:31 AM
1

you're still refusing to give a definition of "indication", Already did, if you can't read that's not my problem. because you know you can't give one that won't prove you wrong. You can repeat this lie as many times as you want, won't make it true my dude. an indication is a condition that the patient presents with. a patient can't present UTI prophylaxis. That's not what indication means. And yes, UTI prophylaxis is an indication. For example, it's an indication to prescribe antibiotics in elde…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:06 AM
1

here's the link i copied and pasted it from: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32545 medicinenet is not a source for technical definitions. It's for lay people to get a basic understanding of what's going on with their care/their families care etc. So you'll run into problems. the only reason the sentence doesn't make sense is because your definition of "medical indication" doesn't make sense. it makes perfect sense if you don't intentionally mangle it up. your definitio…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 05:42 AM
1

All I can say is you made it up. I don't know here it came from, and you're not trustworthy. so what exam, test, or surgery is the valid reason to circumcise a healthy infant? This sentence doesn't make sense...But if you really ant to debate indications you should probably find somebody that actually supports routine circumcision.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 05:23 AM
1

my definition is made up, you say? Since you just made it up....yeah. An indication is a valid reason to do something. In the context of medicine, that would be an exam, test, surgery, giving a medication, etc. and explain how it pertains to routine infant circumcision. See above...really any of the dozen odd comments where it's already been explained should do.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 04:51 AM
0

jesus christ dude, you're really going to do this? Do what? Call you on your made up bullshit. Yep. Indication: 1. In medicine, a condition which makes a particular treatment or procedure advisable. Oh cool, more stuff you've made up. how is a parent's request a condition that makes circumcision advisable? Since your definition is made up, no reason to answer this. here's a hint, it's a lot less complex than you're making it out to be. when would dorsal slit not be an option? how is it possible …
/r/MensRights08/05/19 04:46 AM
1

You have the problem, Nope. I am a problem for you Also Nope. because I consider child mutilation What mutilation? to be punished above and beyond punishment for child rapists. This is a problem for you. Nope. I'm A-OK with punishing mutilation at least on par with rape, if not more harshly. Literally, logic dictates that cutting off part of somebody is worse than touching them. Logic 1st time you've managed to string together a logical sentence, congrats!
/r/MensRights08/05/19 04:13 AM
1

routine circumcision at parents request is NOT a medical indication. Wrong again, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "there are no medical indications for circumcision during the neonatal period". I'll believe it when I see it. And even then, still wouldn't prove your claim. there you go ignoring the word "medical" again. Since you don't know what that word means...no. no, urological trauma cannot ever necessitate circumcision. Thank you for admitting you have absolutely no idea ha…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 04:10 AM
0

No, they're not problems for me. They apply to you, not me. I’ve ever met who? Logic. You don't seem to have ever encountered logic before.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 03:30 AM
1

Again, this is your problem - not mine. It’s literally not a problem in my life. If you want to make it a problem, then making that happen is again: your problem. See this is just nonsense. As in what you wrote makes no sense at all - seriously. I'm not making anything your problem, these are objective problems you demonstrate. These aren't my problems. The person is one who refused to testify against the man who fucked him in the ass when he was 8, because it doesn’t hold a candle to savagely m…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 03:13 AM
0

That sounds like your problem more than mine. All of this does. Nope, since I'm not the one with documented delusions, unable to read correctly, and unable to understand simple words. You are going to have to empathize if you want to make progress. I do empathize - it must be hard to be this delusional. Be mindful of who you are talking to. And who is that?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:55 AM
1

if being born male is not a medical indication for circumcision, then what medical indication do you claim is present in the case of routine infant circumcision (more than 99.99% of circumcisions performed in america)? That is the indication. Routine circumcision at parents request for a variety of reasons absent major contraindications. all of the medical indications you list are best treated with much more conservative interventions, Nope. Conservative treatments are generally preferred but no…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:52 AM
1

Read what's posted: No, it literally isn't. By definition it can't be Seems like you're reading what you want to see rather than what's there. You are forced to acknowledge my existence. Duh? My existence sets forth a requirement on your future hereafter. That’s the rest of your story. Man what are you smoking and where can I order some
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:39 AM
0

MGM is literary object rape with knives. No, it literally isn't. By definition it can't be You are done here. somehow I sense you'll keep replying.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:22 AM
0

Nope. You don't get to declare whatever you want rape, that isn't how words work. MGM is not rape, end of story. Which words do you have umbrage with? Hmm? The ones you clearly don't understand....pedophile, rape, abuse, medical, etc.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:09 AM
0

I’m nobodies alt. needle didn’t refuse to testify against the man who RAPED HIM until the man who MUTILATED HIM was in prison. I don't really believe you, but whatever. Are you claiming that doctors cannot rape, or can always exonerate themselves from rape by attaching a “medical” label to it, even in cases such as this where it is explicitly not a medical procedure. No, I'm not, nor have I ever. read things before you respond. And it explicity is a medical procedure, regardless of how you feel …
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:06 AM
1

no, being born male is NOT a medical indication. Correct. 99.99% of circumcisions are done with NO MEDICAL INDICATION WHATSOEVER Incorrect, but thank you for admitting there are some even you consider medically indicated. not simply a medical indication i think is a poor one, but no medical indication whatsoever. Nope. what are you claiming to be a valid medical indication for circumcision? there is not ever any time when circumcision is ever the best operation to perform for the patient based o…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:50 AM
0

So either you're needle's alt, or we've escalating to stalking too. Awesome. let's dig into your (oddly similar...hmmm) bullshit. It is a sex act in any case where it is done in regards to the child’s sex life, it is a sex act. It is pedophilia to act in regards to their sexuality. No, it's not a sex act, categorically. It's a medical procedure done by doctors for a medical reason - under those conditions it cannot ever be a sex act. Or pedophilia. That's not what those words mean. Is it pedophi…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:35 AM
1

99.99% of circumcisions aren't done for medical indications, though. that means even you admit the vast majority of them are not medical. Not a good medical indication, but regardless a currently accepted one. So yes, they are medical. circumcision is always a sex act. it's the penetration of a person's genital opening. You can repeat your delusion as much as you like, but circumcision will still never be a sex act. There's also no genital penetration...seriously, learn what you're ranting about…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:24 AM
0

a surgical procedure is not necessarily a medical procedure. When done by doctors for a medical indication....yes it is. That's what those words you strung together mean. there is no set of circumstances now or ever that make circumcision NOT a sex act when the person performing it happens to have some particular degree. Well since circumcision is never a sex act....no. there is no such thing as a medical reason for circumcision. circumcision is always a sex act. Yes, there is. Unless you've got…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:07 AM
1

hmmm, no, I don't. Nothing you have to say makes any difference on that one. Too bad.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:00 AM
1

No, it quite literally does not. If you think it does, then you need to work on your reading skills. There is no argument to be had - your position is flat out delusion-level inconsistent with reality. The only people that could agree with you are people who don't know any better.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 12:43 AM
0

No, you might want to look up what splitting hairs means. Y'all seem to have trouble with words. I don't lose (lol) because this isn't a competition, or a contest, or a debate or an argument.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 12:32 AM
1

Sorry that happened to you, but circumcision is still not sexual abuse, child endangerment or rape. Thats not what those words mean.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 12:31 AM
0

Uh uh, let's quote what you actually said: can you explain what, in your opinion, makes circumcisions "medical"? to which I respond: That it's a medical procedure done by doctors under an established standard of care and sanctioned by accredited overseeing bodies. And you just latch onto the repeated word medical and ignore everything else. It's a surgical procedure that is performed by licensed medical professionals for an accepted indication by licensing, scholarly, and governmental bodies. Sa…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 09:32 PM
1

That it's a medical procedure done by doctors under an established standard of care and sanctioned by accredited overseeing bodies. Because it's a medical procedure performed for a medical purpose by a medical doctor with 0 sexual context or sexual activity. i assume you'd agree that this man is guilty of sexual assault, despite his medical degree: Not even going to click, from the title I can already tell you it has no relevance. Sex is not a medical procedure.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 09:06 PM
1

no, they are not medical. they do not relate to the treatment of illness or injury Doesn't matter if they do or don't, they're still medical. any surgery being done to treat an illness or injury is medical surgery. No, it isn't. Medical surgery is not something that exists. a well visit is not a medical visit. a physical examination is not a medical procedure. Wrong on both counts. you may have explained it, but you're wrong. No, I'm not. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You ha…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 06:19 PM
1

no, neither one is medical. they don't meet the definition of it. in fact, it's called cosmetic surgery to differentiate it from medical surgery, and it's called a well visit to differentiate it from a medical visit. Completely false, even under whatever definition of 'medical' you pulled out of your ass. All of those things are medical. Cosmetic surgery is medical. "Medical surgery" is not a thing that exists. A well visit is what we call those types of medical visits. A well child visit is sti…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 06:00 PM
1

if they don't relate to the treatment of anything, they're not medical. No, it's still medical. Cosmetic surgery is still a medical procedure, regular office visits/well checks are still medical appointments, etc. i think you're confusing the concept of parental permission with the concept of consent. the two are not the same thing. the parent saying that they're okay with the child getting a particular treatment is not the same thing as the individual consenting to it. thankfully, consent is of…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:42 PM
1

no, the definition of "medical" is "relating to the treatment of illness and injuries". [Citation needed]. Sounds like google, but still an incomplete definition. Well child and newborn visits are definitely medical, but don't relate to the treatment of anything. Leaves out a bunch of other stuff as well. no, one person cannot ever consent to something on behalf of another person. that's not how consent works. there's nothing special about "sexual consent". consent works the same way in relation…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:29 PM
0

no, there is nothing medical about it. It's an established medical procedure performed by doctors. It is by definition medical. There's no argument otherwise. one person cannot give consent on behalf of another person. if they could, fathers would never go to prison for molestation. Parents can in fact consent for medical procedures for their children. That's how consent works. You're correct that this doesn't apply to sexual consent, but then again sexual consent isn't relevant, since nothing s…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:15 PM
-3

there is nothing medical about the amputation of a normal body part. Except it's a long established medical procedure. So yes, it is medical. And amputation of normal, healthy tissue can absolutely be part of medical procedures. consent can't be given before the child reaches the age of consent. Conseng is given by the parents, just like for every other medical procedure or intervention at that age. forcibly penetrating a child's sex organ, regardless of who it's done by, is a sex act. Not when …
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:01 PM
-2

Doesn't apply in the context of medical procedures for which consent has been given. Also the genital opening is typically not penetrated - if you're talking about the separation of the glans from prepuce then say that. Circumcision performed by medical professionals is absolutely not sexual abuse. To say otherwise is dishonest. Again, there is more than enough justification to oppose/ban MGM without lying and trying to emotionally manipulate people with bullshit.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:28 PM
1

It's not sexual abuse. There's more than enough reasons to ban the practice without resorting to bullshit nonarguments like that - all you're accomplishing is making anyone with sense take you less seriously.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:33 AM
3

You really don't need to be a urologist to understand that really basic part of physiology, any MD or DO should. It's covered in semester 1 anatomy, and again later in neuroscience, and usually again in endocrine/reproductive lectures.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 12:29 PM
1

Edge case then, wonder how they were trained. Were they credentialed with the hospital, or was this more as a mohel?
/r/MensRights11/04/19 02:18 PM
3

Very unlikely an OBGYN would be credentialed by the hospital to do them. They're never trained in how to perform them. Pediatricians typically do them, with the #2 group being urology. The money isn't that great, and the volume isn't really high enough to be relevant for their overall income. Most pediatricians IME either think it's a benign procedure or believe in the benefits. They're incorrect, but that's a culture shift that will take time to happen, though fortunately the rate of routine MG…
/r/MensRights11/04/19 08:11 AM
1

Current CDC schedule: males & females age 11-18 (could begin @ age 9 in special situations), FDA approval was previously 11-26.
/r/MensRights07/04/19 03:46 AM
8

If you're in the US, FDA has approved hpv vaccination for males and females up to age 45, not sure if CDC has updated their schedule yet though.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 09:02 AM
9

Not to my knowledge, no. Recently published data from the UK in fact showed an 79-89% reduction in the rate of cervical neoplasia in situ - the earliest development of cancerous cells. Link World Health Organization (WHO) Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety stated that the benefit-risk profile remains favorable. The most common adverse reactions are injection site irritations which resolve rapidly. There are some reports of syncopal events (fainting) but they haven't been substaintiated …
/r/MensRights06/04/19 08:59 AM
3

So basically a woozle effect on a daisy chain. Make a claime, cite a sources that just re-states the claim without evidence & cites another source that does the same, ad infinitum. Yeah, we can do better than that.
/r/MensRights10/03/19 08:30 PM
2

Per u/ImNeb 's post, based on available sources this one appears to be a woozle.
/r/MensRights10/03/19 08:28 PM
-3

The last time this came up, nobody was able to provide a source for the claim. Searches haven't produced anything either so while I do believe kids need fathers I'm going to remain skeptical of that stat.
/r/MensRights10/03/19 05:47 PM
24

So that would be a no, then. Strong work sport.
/r/MensRights04/03/19 04:23 PM
1

Show me the suicide mortality numbers. These are the only numbers that matter for answering the question of whether or not transitioning reduces suicide. Everything else is noise. Go take a skim. I'll wait. No in this case it's you and your political agenda. What ISN'T here is science. I'm making a legitimate scientific criticism of your claim that transitioning reduces suicide, which you do not seem to understand the validity of. The irony here is palpable. I don't have any political agenda. I'…
/r/MensRights28/02/19 01:56 AM
1

No, it's not blatantly false. Body dysphoria is not gender dysphoria/GID. And the current evidence based practice recommendations for transgender adolescents do include hormone/puberty blocking. Here is an excellent page written by an international endocrinology society. You're welcome to disagree with them, but you're going against the weight of the evidence & expert opinion in the field so you should have some extremely compelling, well supported points.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 01:53 AM
1

If you'll scroll up, there's a great link that actual compiles dozens of studies for you to look at. Like the one I quoted. Which directly lists transition as a protective factor for suicide. And no, there's no big pharma conspiracy here. In the first place they don't get paid anything for surgery, and the meds aren't breaking the bank either. This isn't a big moneymaker for whatever mythical "big pharma" you think is making sinister plots or however the conspiracy goes.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 06:46 PM
0

Cool, well thanks for acknowledging you're not arguing in good faith. You can't reason someone out og a position they didn't reason themselves into so I doubt any level of evidence will be sufficient. This kind of politically-motivated crap "research" wasn't good enough to let big pharma keep pumping kids full of Prozac without more real research, and it's not good enough to let crazy trans activists mutilate kids for no good reason. Careful, your agenda is showing. Head on back to r/conspiracy …
/r/MensRights27/02/19 08:11 AM
1

If you want to assess the actual evidence on the subject, I'd recommend starting here I think their opinion is pretty clear, but at the same time coming from a highly reputable academic center, crystal clear transparency & links to all the actual articles IMO makes their project really robust. There is no good evidence for increase in suicidality, and decent to strong evidence that transition (including surgical transition) is a protective factor. Trans patients regardless of transition status w…
/r/MensRights27/02/19 01:30 AM
0

Ehhhh. That's not really accurate. Transition is the most effective treatment for GID generally speaking. That includes surgical options if indicated for that patient. While the suicide incidence doesn't return to a normal baseline, there is a beneficial effect from transitioning.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 10:27 AM
6

No, the court ruled the SS act as it currently stands to be unconstitutional. Whatever UN treaty there may be is 100% irrelevant as it's superseded by the constitution. There's no loophole, the only out would be a higher court disagreeing on the constitutionality of the law.
/r/MensRights24/02/19 07:24 AM
6

Mostly right, but in circs done by physicians (vs mohels, can't comment on whatever the fuck they do) there's not really any fondling. You don't need (or really want) the penis erect - not that it doesn't happen semi-regularly anyway. Source - I had to observe several of them as a medical student on my pediatrics clerkship. I also wouldn't call anything the ultimate act of submission but that's more nit picky.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 09:42 PM
7

IIRC it was the definition the FBI uses to track crime statistics. Though even the CDC still only considers it rape if the victim is penetrated. As a federal crime it may also have changed but the vast majority of incidents will be covered & charged (or more like not charged if the aggressor is female) under state law. Many states still require the victim to be penetrated.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 12:11 PM
1

Lol no. Blackmail? That's just ridiculous. Is the doctors office blackmailing you if they require you not smoke inside? Is it blackmail if a band puts a rider in their contract stating a full bowl of m&ms with all the browns picked out be placed for them backstage? Is it blackmail for me to tell my friend I'll stop inviting him over if he doesn't stop taking taco shits in my bathroom? Is an ortho surgeon requiring a patient to quit smoking for six months before offering knee surgery blackmailing…
/r/MensRights09/02/19 07:46 PM
2

No, it absolutely doesn't. The patient must agree to the disclosure but the surgeon is allowed to make the disclosure a condition of them offering the surgery. Don't want to follow the requirement? Find a different surgeon.
/r/MensRights09/02/19 07:20 PM
2

No, it isn't. It's not legal for a hospital to have a policy like that, but freestanding surgical centers, individual offices, ect. are not bound by that. I believe it's a federal law. The doctor can require you tell your spouse as a condition of offering s procedure. They can require you tell a friend. They can require you to quit smoking or drinking or agree to not eat a certain type of food or pretty much any other requirement they want as a condition of offering an elective procedure. They c…
/r/MensRights09/02/19 06:35 PM
2

No grounds to forcd anything. It's an elective procedure and the doctor has the right to set their own requirements on offering it. This is the US, and you can sue anyone for anything, but trying to force the doctor or get damages would never survive a legal challenge.
/r/MensRights09/02/19 04:58 PM
2

It is not a HIPAA violation. It is an (IME) uncommon, but completely legal policy.
/r/MensRights09/02/19 04:53 PM
2

No, it isn't. The patient either agrees to the disclosure & requirements set by the Uro or they don't get the procedure. It's a fairly common requirement in elective/day surgery that you have a friend or family member available & willing to pick you up/drive you home, which requires you to allow the disclosure or not get surgery.
/r/MensRights09/02/19 04:49 PM
0

There is no such thing. Vigilantes are cancerous & should be immediately & publicly executed if they're convicted of harming somebody.
/r/MensRights03/02/19 12:07 PM
1

First claim fails on it's face, second doesn't have any support to my knowledge. What media outlet was calling for violence.
/r/MensRights30/01/19 12:52 PM
0

Slander/ defamation requires either intentional false statement (not going to be met) or reckless disregard or negligence for the truth (can't be met). This lawyer knows that, or should. He has no viable case, any suits would by necessity be frivolous. He's not giving anyone a chance to take anything back. He's hunting for targets dumb enough to do so. Then after identifying soft targets he abuses the legal system to force them to defend against a frivolous suit. This is literally why states hav…
/r/MensRights24/01/19 06:30 PM
-3

"Please name yourself & give a nice public confession" Super scummy - and they have very little chance of success too. This is just abusing the legal system to bully people you don't like.
/r/MensRights24/01/19 06:08 AM
1

I'm slightly less suspicious for that type of scam given both seem to actually have lawyers - one of whom I at least tangentially know/used to know.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 09:57 PM
4

I generally have a high level of skepticism for 95% of crowd funding in general. Especially when the story is murky. Especially when it's a grade A outrage story. This thing smells so fishy I feel like I'm on a fishing boat. (I'm bad at punny similes, don't sue me). No worries, just because you can't turn a phrase doesn't mean you're not a kipper. In the grand scale of things we've all got different gifts, different hooks if you will. Don't let the reddit pun threads bait you into feeling down.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 07:43 PM
7

It's dramatized. Most of what's posted is either medically/legally wrong or misleading. They're not prepping the kid for immenent castration, surgery if it ever happened would be with the assent of the child, and this is not some landmark civil rights precedent case for father's rights. The mom in this case very clearly has her own agenda but so does the dad & whoever is running the savejames site. IMO the mom is suspicious/unreasonable for refusing any second opinion - which I think should not …
/r/MensRights22/01/19 07:14 PM
8

I'm fairly skeptical of this - what's described is almost certainly not accurate, and even being very generous it's nowhere near the standard of care as determined by the American society of clinical endocrinologists ("Below standard of care" is legal speak for malpractice in this case unless you have a damn good reason to do what you did). Link to guideline attn to point 1.0 & 2.0, regarding adolescents. Chemical castration is not something that's going to happen - that's intellectual dishonest…
/r/MensRights22/01/19 07:57 AM
2

No worries, I was thinking you were the commenter above Jay who was claiming the use of MD/Dr on twitter was a crime
/r/MensRights06/01/19 07:16 PM
4

She still has an MD. It's not impersonating a doctor to call yourself one when you have an MD. The state suspended her license, which means that she can't practice medicine in that state. That doesn't change whether or not she's a doctor. It's almost impossible to have your MD revoked after graduation unless there was fraud/misconduct involved in earning it.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 05:09 PM
7

I actually initially upvoted them, then went back and changed them all when they made it clear they were arguing in bad faith & had no intention of doing anything but trolling.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 04:15 PM
3

No....AEDs apply a shock to depolarize the entire heart, terminating the aberrant rhythm so that the heart's normal pacemaking activity can resume. Defibrillation is the treatment for half of the ACLS arrest rhythms. CPR doesn't terminate shockable arrhythmias like Vfib or pVT, it just provides coronary & cerebral perfusion pressure. If you want to talk about PEA/asystole that may change somewhat, but you can't use an AED on those rhythms anyway
/r/MensRights12/11/18 02:19 AM
15

No, the functional equivalent of external clitoridectomy is MGM. The most sensitive, highly innervated tissues in both are removed. In terms of function the glans penis is most similar to the internal portion of the clitoris.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 04:42 PM
0

Failure of conservative therapy & even less destructive surgical interventions have failed. There's also a rare indication with recurrent complicated UTIs. Ideally no one would have to be circumcised, but occasionally it is actually medically indicated.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 03:43 AM
2

Pathological phimosis can affect males of almost any age, as the rate of separation of the glans from the foreskin is highly variable. Agree that circumcision is almost never required, and only appropriate to consider after more conservative options have failed or aren't available. It can however be an option in recurrent UTIs, but doesn't have a relevant benefit in prophylaxis of UTIs in most healthy males.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 03:36 AM
1

Or....it's a group enacting illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, that was sued for their flagrant disregard for the law. It's not any more or less than that.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 02:18 AM
14

All female casts are not corrective action, nor are all male casts furthering the problem. To accept your statement requires a bigoted worldview
/r/MensRights23/07/18 11:11 PM
171

Napkin math: 2/73 = 2.7% of revenue 16/4800 = 0.33% of revenue 2.7/.33 = 8 So the winning womens team got 8x the revenue share of the mens losing team. Make of that what you will. Disclaimer, running on 3 hours of sleep, hour ~9 of shift atm
/r/MensRights10/07/18 06:47 PM
4

I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. Have a good one, and enjoy being wrong - or at least get better at trolling. I'm going to sleep, feel free to grab the last word, I know it's important to you.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 06:35 AM
6

Uh huh, and this thing your referencing is not the basis for law. You obviously don't believe in theoretical physics. You obviously don't believe in reading
/r/MensRights10/07/18 06:26 AM
8

No, because this has nothing to do with the objective world or hard sciences. It's arbitrary human bullshit. At no point before maybe the last decade or so has any lawmaket even known the name, much less the function or concept of the pfc. It has not been the basis of law as you claim, which is a hard requirement for your further claim that things affecting the pfc are why they're in law. This is putting the cart before the horse. End of story.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 05:59 AM
7

No, you're putting the cart before the horse. The knowledge and basis is law that children & young adults are more impulsive and less reasonable predates all of modern neuroscience. In no meaningful or reasonable way is the pfc the basis for any of the laws you're discussing. But good effort though.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 05:32 AM
7

No, sorry none of that addresses my request. In fact it goes counter to your point. Your claim was that the basis of the law was the underdeveloped pfc, I asked for textual evidence in statutes for this basis which we both know doesn't exist. Specifically in regard to age of consent, age of majority ect these principles far predate our understanding of the pfc as it relates to impulse control, executive function, disinhibition, ect. Your links then go on to address how current law does not adequ…
/r/MensRights10/07/18 05:06 AM
19

Bring up statutory rape laws if you want a good show - they'll flip shit and rant about how two teenagers having sex is identical to a 50 year old adult grooming and raping a teenager.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 02:42 AM
27

mwobuddy is one of the resident trolls, I'm never sure exactly how much of their own brand of crazy they actually believe. Just RES tag so you can recognize it early in the future man
/r/MensRights10/07/18 02:33 AM
6

Please cite for me where in the law - any law, state, federal, city ordinance, anything that got passed by by a valid political subdivision of the US - the prefrontal cortex is referenced. I eagerly await your reply.
/r/MensRights10/07/18 02:32 AM
14

Just as a physiological fact, your grandmother could jerk you off and not only would you get it up, you'll come eventually no matter how mentally revolted you are. Just like if I were to hit your patellar tendon your leg would jerk. It's a reflex response to stimulus that can be isolated at the spinal level. Hell, if you cut a guys head off & managed to keep their body alive their penis would still be able to get hard and ejaculate. Interestingly enough, priapism (read:involuntary erection) is a…
/r/MensRights25/06/18 11:33 AM
1

Sure, thats totally fair - it's just my subjective opinion. I'm a recently graduated MD, so that's the perspective I'm speaking from.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:05 PM
2

I don't accept it either as a general premise. That's why I think it's a silly policy - anybody it would help is someone who's gonna wash out anyway
/r/MensRights18/06/18 05:39 PM
4

If their identity/ego is fragile enough that this is a serious concern then I'm not so sure. You need fortitude & resiliency to make it. One third to one half of students & interns meet criteria for major depressive disorder; more than half are burned out. Going into med school (esp an Ivy) you're important, special, ect. Once you're in, you're nothing. When you graduate, you're a workhorse. Over 400 physicians comit suicide each year - 2 full med school classes. Twice the rate of gen pop.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 05:07 PM
6

If a student of medicine can't cope because they don't see POC's on the wall of Deans, then sorry to tell you lady, they probably can't mentally handle the program... They're gonna have a rude awakening when they hit their third year of med school and realize 90% of your grade is a made up, subjective popularity score from your ( likely old white male) attending. If they manage to survive that, intern year & residency in general will be 100x worse, and probably destroy them.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 03:32 PM
3

I was referring to the criminal trial with a jury of lay people. As for the GMC, they considered evidence they should not have had access to which is prejudicial (her post-incident reflections, for example). Does it say anywhere what 21 mistakes she made? That link is buggy on my phone. Regarding the consultant, this is an issue of lay people not understanding. The consultant is a senior physician who is responsible for all the junior's patients. He was already responsible for this kid before sh…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 01:53 AM
6

Agreed. It's more than a little disturbing that juries of lay-people sit on cases they're abjectly unqualified for - the conviction IMO is bunk from the (admittedly little) I've read of the case. This was a massive systems failure, and the fact they introduced private reflections they coerced her into writing is abhorrent and honestly every Junior over there should absolutely refuse to write or sign those from now on until they're protected. I do also love how the consultant managed to miss thos…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 04:22 PM
1

Yeah, I personally don't include them, we get lumped in together enough as it is - but I see what you're saying. You're absolutely right re: institutional power.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:45 PM
1

Yep. Though honestly I'd put incels and the angrier MGTOW on the same level as the feminazis. They deny the basic humanity of women like the others deny the basic humanity of men.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:37 PM
2

Oh and you guys reported me? Cute. Honey the most I've done is downvote an obvious troll. You haven't broken any rules here, there's nothing to report. You'll note you haven't been banned, because we don't do that. Oh hell fucking no. Aw heeell yeeeaaah. You do not discredit my best friend's abuse that I have witnessed plenty. So she gave herself a bloody nose and calls herself on the phone in the middle of the day to say, "you're a slut!"? Yeah, I'm not gonna take the word of a troll making uns…
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:10 AM
3

Nvm. I peeped your comment history to try to understand you better. You're just an arrogant medical doctor who touts out false rape statistic and spends your time calling everyone else bullshit. So, you spent the time to stalk my post history but you couldn't be bothered to read it? That's kinda sad. I am a doctor, sure. I haven't brought up any false statistics - but I can see your true colors now. Yes, men are raped at about the same rate as women. And 40-45% of rapists are women. That's a fac…
/r/MensRights09/06/18 10:55 AM
2

Cool. Keep bitching about feminism on the internet I mean hat do you think you're doing here besides bitching? This is an online forum, it has little bearing on what any of us do outside of here. while a feminist goes and works her ass off to ensure that little boys grow up to be emotional sound and literate. Cool. I wish you the best with that - sincerely. I'm used to you guys dismissing me. Right, and we're used to being shit on everywhere for the radical notion that men deserve to have their …
/r/MensRights09/06/18 10:47 AM
3

I am a mother, wife, and teacher. Despite conventional attractiveness that you would refer to as a privilege or vagina pass, I have worked many jobs that are unwanted including construction jobs doing drywall and custodian jobs. Right now I'm trying to secure a third job as groundskeeper at a nonprofit that benefits impoverished men. Awesome possum. I'm here to point out that your bs is bs. It is rooted in jealousy and hate. Blaming women for your problems smh. I am certain my sisters, cousins, …
/r/MensRights09/06/18 10:15 AM
2

Sure, but the dramatically elevated suicide rate is a dangerous consequence.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 06:30 AM
8

Oh definitely. This lady should under no circumstances be allowed to work in medicine in any capacity. But many people in medicine have some level of mental health issues, and one of the reasons the suicide rate in the field is so high is because of beliefs like the one you posted. Much like suicide in men in general, it's an area society at large likes to not think about.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:59 PM
19

Depends on what you mean. Current data shows 25-33% of medical students & resident physicians have depression. Attending physicians have depression at comparable rates to the general population (13% in men, 20% in women). Anxiety disorders are similarly elevated in students & residents.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:29 PM
1

Ok? I'm not trying to impress anyone but thanks. If your goal is to impress people you might want to try actually participating in the discussion.
/r/MensRights05/06/18 05:03 AM
-1

Wow...it's not everyday you see somebody fail to grasp the basics of sociology and statistics and basic argument construction, try an r/iamverysmart and then talk about how bad they "burned" you. It's almost impressive.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 11:21 PM
1

You sound like a Canadian politician when it comes to dealing with aboriginal affairs because every decade they address the native problem by conducting a costly study to examine problems facing bands and then take absolutely no action to resolve any problems and a decade later they need to conduct another study to address the problems because, although they’ve taken no action at all, they assume the problems have magically changed. Well I'm a country boy from Texas so that's interesting to hear…
/r/MensRights04/06/18 10:01 PM
-2

No, it isn't but thanks for confirming you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no 'simple math' that can answer the question in any coherent fashion, especially when there's no data to perform that math on.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 09:49 PM
1

Tons of things have changed, positive, negative, neutral & everything in between. Changes in completely unrelated areas can spill over from secondary, tertiary, ect. effects. Without actual sound data to make assertions from all you have is wild, uninformed speculation & uneducated guesses. It's not even a valid statement that things in this specific area have only gotten worse, much less society as a whole. Have things gotten worse? Or better? Or stayed generally the same? We have no idea, beca…
/r/MensRights04/06/18 06:51 PM
0

what to you indicates that those numbers will be different today? Well unless you think literally nothing has changed in any way since the 80's/90's, there's very little indication either way. Decades old sociological data has extremely limited (essentially 0) applicability to present day. It can be used to make statements about the era it was collected in, and not much else.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 04:19 PM
-1

Cool, can you drop a link to the data set you're using? Since you can tell us with certainty that "nothing has changed except the # of children and parents", you must have some solid data and not just your individual experience or anecdotes.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 04:16 PM
1

You're a liar you are a female, I understand women very well and I can clearly see by the way that you think, you are a female There's 0 validity to this statement unless you can provide some serious credentials to back it up. More than likely, you're just full of hot air. There is no such thing as a mental health professional. Even top doctors admit that it's a Psuedo science. Citation? Because I am a doctor and I've worked with and trained with many mental health professionals, from therapists…
/r/MensRights31/05/18 07:04 AM
4

Took a skim as well, and looked at the imaging - I'm not an expert on the disease but from my knowledge (MD) they're legit & enough details match that the story seems legit as well. /u/popemichael I'm so sorry you're going through this. I can't give you any life or medical advice, but maybe I can help with the medicines themselves. Have you tried getting in touch with the manufacturer of your medications to see if they have copay assistance? Your doctor's office may have samples depending on wha…
/r/MensRights25/05/18 05:38 PM
0

It's easy to get caught up in the injustice and let the reaction drive your forward. It's also easy to take a hard line ideological stance when you're in an ideological echo chamber.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:47 PM
1

Lack of evidence to convict != false accusation. Thats not even remotely close to how things work. Also, rape very often doesn't have much, or any physical evidence. None of the criminal elements which seperate the crime from normal sex necessarily leave physical signs.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:17 PM
0

he couldn't prove that someone has done X, that means he falsely accused him, No, that is absolutely not how that works. State not being able to meet their burden != false accusation. All aquittals are not false accusations.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:11 PM
0

Well, credit where credit is due - good job ignoring 95% of the conversation at least. I'm commenting in a stickied thread that is a serious & (IMO) valuable discussion about the things that happen here. I haven't seen these 100% passive aggressive posts you're citing, nor do I particularly care to history-stalk somebody to prove your (wholly irrelevant) point. You were being self righteous and honestly kind of an ass. That's what I've seen, so that's what I said. On the tail end of a comment en…
/r/MensRights17/05/18 06:11 AM
2

The issues that lead to MGTOW are men's issues. Of course there's going to be some overlap, particularly when the issues that lead to MGTOW have been politicized. They weren't referring to the issues that lead to MGTOW, but the atmosphere. /r/MGTOW is often an extremely angry (and also often pretty misogynistic) place - which, in their philosophy is appropriate, the forum is for informing necomers ho broken the game is, and to allow them to vent/discuss their anger at the above (among other thin…
/r/MensRights17/05/18 05:48 AM
1

I know netflix & such do it bc of liscensing/distribution agreements but idk if thats the case here or if it's an advertiser thinv or what
/r/MensRights21/04/18 01:32 PM
2

I'm fairly sure it's geo-locked. I'm in Tx, and when I hover over the OP link this is the url: https://www.9now.au/a-current-affair/2018/extras/latest/180420/barber-shop-blues But when I click it I get redirected to https://9now.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003497168-I-m-outside-of-Australia-Why-can-t-I-watch-9Now- I-m-outside-of-Australia-Why-can-t-I-watch-9Now- That bit is what make me think that.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 08:30 PM
4

Yeah, I think it's a distinction of degree rather than difference. Thank you for a great conversation, gave me something interesting to do while cooking (though I did almost overcook the fish typing out that last reply lol).
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:19 AM
1

I've never seen it firsthand, but I've seen the aftermath once they get to the hospital a few times. Generally most people can lift many times their body weight, but fear, pain, ect. consciously & unconsciously keep it from happening. Part of the stress response is optimizing muscle output, but a large part is also neurological - endorphins damp don pain and increase focus, unconscious limits are disregarded, ect.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:18 AM
1

That's fair. In the original image that OP says they have a nurse so she's not leaving him alone to die. If she were to stay around peripherally and provide some kind of help (Pay for a caretaker, facility, ect.) I think it'd be better than vanishing completely.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:13 AM
0

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree wrt free will - those debates never seem to go anywhere but in circles when they concern such a fundamental aspect of the way one vies the world. As for a discussion on purpose, I don't know if that's just a shorthand for a larger/more abstract idea, but no. Nature has no purpose, there is no goal or design to evolution. Even reproduction is not a goal. It's a haphazard, cobbled together mess where randomness rules, the motto is "if it ain't broke don't …
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:11 AM
2

I get what you're saying. But love just lets you pull up from the bottom of the well, it doesn't make it any deeper or more full than it was. (side note - the moms lifting cars thing is interesting - they always had the strength to do it, but the stress response unlocks the full power of their muscles that they normally can't voluntarily access - maybe a better analogy than you thought!)
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:06 AM
1

(to avoid quote spam I'm just going to snip the first part of each paragraph, not ignoring anything) I still disagree, though. I think you're conflating two things here, and to be fair I feel like it's a muddy point I didn't clarify well. Someone saving your life should indeed have your gratitude, but I don't feel that it should be endless or that you must dedicate your entire life to them because of that. I would vie doing so as a morally acceptable thing, because it's an incredibly selfless ac…
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:02 AM
1

That's a pretty cold view of human interactions. In general people don't make those decisions as a quid pro quo exchange of services. Most heroes are never celebrated, and I don't think that's a secret. Even if you just look at is an exchange I don't think you're right - you're only considering onward from the attack, leaving out the entirety of the relationship before that. I also don't agree that there's a "purpose" we're crafted for, or a part e're predetermined to play by nature. It's fundam…
/r/MensRights20/04/18 12:41 AM
0

I don't think you can measure commitment like that - comparing a split second decision to one over years of suffering and sacrifice. I agree there's not a line drawn in the sand, it's up to the individual to decide what they can & can't endure, but I don't think it's based solely on love. I think a lot of it is strength/fortitude.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 12:35 AM
2

Yes, those are options, and those people should be applauded for making it work. The opposite doesn't necessarily follow however - those who can't do it (especially those who realize it) don't deserve to be derided. I made a more in-depth reply to another poster here.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 10:12 PM
19

It doesn't matter how they got that way - it's 100% irrelevant. Full time care for someone like that is a job very very few people are qualified for (by which I mean, can handle). I deeply feel for both of them, but I'm going to talk about the wife's perspective here since I don't think any of us have trouble feeling for the husband. There is no such thing as a life debt, that's a concept that belongs in the 1200s. Put yourself in her shoes for a bit and give her the benefit of the doubt. Preten…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 10:09 PM
11

I think of it like a (much better) r/iamverybadass moment - someone who's never been in that situation saying 'of course I'd do this because I'm a good person'. But that's just what we like to tell ourselves, how we'd react under extreme circumstances. It doesn't always line up with reality & that's ok - it's human nature.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 09:05 PM
30

Exactly. Everyone in this thread talking about how she owes him (bullshit) or about wedding vows should be read as, "I have no clue what I'm talking about, please ignore me". Caring for someone like that is incredibly draining & demanding, physically mentally emotionally financially ect. There are full tile professional healthcare workers who get burned out taking care of these patients. It's not something most people are capable of doing long term. I've seen family members of these patients wor…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 08:22 PM
0

It's not super lucrative really - the pediatrician makes about $400 IIRC from peds. On average they might do 1 a week (most weeks 0-1, sometimes 2-5). So for a pedi hospitalist working 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off thats ~10k, on a 167k median base salary plus bonuses/incentives. About a 6% raise in pay before accounting for taxes, increased liability, ect. For outpt the equation is different & IMO too variable to get good numbers from. Source: US allo MS4
/r/MensRights02/04/18 02:41 PM
2

Yep, checking the groin is part of the primary/secondary survey for trauma patients you learn in medical school (usually on surgery/EM).
/r/MensRights11/03/18 02:48 PM
1

Well you will have to take that up with Merck as they are the ones that declared 4 serious incidents out of 15,705 follow ups. Lol, of course they did. It's a liability thing, I guarantee no medical decision making took place - straight up checklist. Yes I stated that 90% of infections clear up on there own within 2 years. Yes, and you also stated "If HPV contact becomes an infection it has to last for 2 years before it can become warts or cancer." which is wrong. For 20 years effectiveness that…
/r/MensRights06/03/18 12:08 AM
1

Started out at 4 determined vaccine related events. I conceded down to 2 to acknowledge that 2 of the event types might not be considered that serious. And I'm saying even the 4 we have at best a shaky level of confidence in. And of those, 2 were almost certainly not serious. If HPV contact becomes an infection it has to last for 2 years before it can become warts or cancer. No....most infections are cleared within 2 years though. So that 10 year old turns 30 and becomes infected, the infection …
/r/MensRights05/03/18 10:54 PM
1

Just like it's impossible to know that smoking causes lung cancer, right? Since the connection between HPV & cervical cancer is stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. (Source see also cite Munoz et all, 2003). Yeah - no. Cervical cancer is known to be caused by certain high risk types of HPV. To repeat: persistent Infection with high-risk HPV is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. Gardasil/HPV vaccines have been extensively studied and shown to be safe, highly immunogenic & ef…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 08:47 PM
1

So using 2 / 15,705. That gives us 12.73 / 100,000 "serious adverse events". There may be more out of the 354 reported incidents that could not be determined to be vaccine related but were. Sure, but recall that according to VAERS rules anything the patient reports has to be logged as an event, which is then classified based on a set criteria. We don't even know for sure that any SAEs were caused, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here. So vaccinate 100,000 9-10 year olds, cause 12.73 prob…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 04:56 PM
2

The link between HPV & cervical cancer is well established. As is the knowledge that the vaccine effectively reduces the rate of cervical cancer (as well as anal, vulvar, oropharyngeal, ect.). Thee numbers for 10-24 year olds are not relevant to your point. Four serious adverse events plausibly linked to the vaccine out of 15,705 followups is 0.025%. About 0.6% of women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer at some point in their life. People have either hospitalized or suffer for years with th…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 09:45 AM
1

Oh! I thought you said. And? Actually, its quite linear. If sex with a person under the age of consent is a crime And someone has sex with a person under the age of consent Then that someone is guilty of a crime against the person. Age of the offender is irrelevant. I do like how you ignored the part of my comment regarding Romeo and Juliet laws - where certain age gaps are explicitly allowed for minors. Or about how prosecutorial discretion works to serve the interests of the community. If you …
/r/MensRights03/03/18 04:59 PM
1

You keep editing your comment, so Some parts may or may not be addressed. I'll preserve quotes from prior edits in bolded text. So what you're saying is that if two people who've been married forever get drunk and fuck, the woman was raped? I don't recall saying that. Got a quote? After all, she can't consent by law due to having too much alchy in her blood. If she's drunk enough to meet the legal definition of incapacitated, then quite possibly. Everywhere I can think of in the US sets a pretty…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 04:21 PM
1

It actually has 100% of the bearing on a person's capability to consent. Consent is, again, a legal term with a legal definition. In this context it's the only thing that matters.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 03:48 PM
1

No, consent is not a state of mind or a legal document. It's a legal term with a legal meaning, defined (you guessed it) by law. Those are the facts.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 12:06 PM
1

And if the basic definition mattered, you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, he didn't consent.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 07:31 AM
1

Doesn't matter, even if he wanted more than anything else in the world he didn't consent.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 06:19 AM
1

Sex happened, there was no consent.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 03:15 AM
1

Except that by the facts it couldn't have been consensual.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 02:54 AM
1

Yes, but in court none of that is taken for granted - you have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. That's the lowest standard admittedly, but the judges aren't stupid - though juries usually are, but that's a separate bag of worms.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 03:01 PM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 04:26 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 03:52 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 03:10 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 03:05 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 02:59 AM
5

Ideally, yeah. Apply everywhere you're qualified, then where you're overqualified ect. ect., then you have to show in court that your not being hired was their fault, then prove your damages. If you end up only able to get a job flipping burgers when you're qualified to do a job earning x, the difference between x & burger flipping wages could be damages. Once your actual damages are tallied, then punitive damages can be determined, and so on and so on. Could potentially be a few mill involved a…
/r/MensRights25/02/18 02:28 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 02:13 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 12:54 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights25/02/18 12:20 AM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 11:43 PM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 11:20 PM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 10:35 PM
19

Generally when the victim of a tort or other civil claim you have an obligation to mitigate your damages. Failing to do so (or try) can result in those damages being excluded from consideration.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 10:18 PM
0

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks. This is fun, but at some point aren't you going to have to go back to your day job of molesting children and lying?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 10:11 PM
0

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 10:07 PM
0

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 09:51 PM
0

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also stop raping children, thanks.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 09:40 PM
1

This level of deliberate ingorance & anger can really only come from projection. If you want to feel better, you should really stop raping children.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:40 PM
1

K
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:22 PM
1

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:15 PM
1

Also said everyone not in the above groups. That's a kafkatrap not an argument.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:07 PM
1

No, you haven't substantiated shit. Also, are your arms tired after spending all that time making strawmen? Again the only narrative here is yours.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:01 PM
-1

Lol, the facts matter, but only when they help you right? It's an abborrent practice, but in no uncertain terms here are some things it's unequivocally not: rape, molestation, mastrubation, sexual abuse, pedophilia. Those are the facts.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:59 PM
1

Except it is. The only narrative here is yours. Also, nice ninja edit. You really need to learn to read and drop this ultimate victim bullshit because again it's something you have projected & fabricated.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:53 PM
0

Probably so! and yet your argument is still wrong. If I go out and kidnap anyone and perform surgery on them against their will I'd be arrested, yet when I do the exact same procedure in the hospital on a consenting patient I get paid for it. Wtf? That's weird right? It's almost like the context in which things happens matter.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:48 PM
1

It's absolutely consistent with the data to say that mem are victimized by women at comparable rates in areas considered to be gendered (sexual assauly, IPV, ect.) As far as sexual harassment goes I have yet to see a single study that's methodologically capable of correctly studying the subject of male harassment victims. We know from reports that it's very common for botg genders but the vast bulk of funding and research goes to studying & helping women. As for Me2, yes some high profile men ha…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:45 PM
-1

Yes, she's making the same argument. She's also wrong.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:39 PM
1

And? I guarantee the effects of under reporting are significantly more pronounced on male victimization. That's not even touching on collection, definition & methodology biases that all work to disproportionately erase male victimization.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 07:03 PM
0

I'm not the one denying the way words work, but you have fun with your emotional arguments & lies
/r/MensRights24/02/18 06:52 PM
-5

The case against MGM is strong enough without having to inject your own bullshit into it. It's not pedophillia, molestation, mastrubation, rape, or oral sex. This is just shotgunning emotionally charged words that at best have a tenuous connection to the facts. I've found many of your anti MGM posts to be well sourced & reasoned, but the fiction in this one needs to go. No, I do not support any form of MGC unless actually medically indicated (extremely rare). No, there is no justification for ro…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 11:44 AM
4

The only reason people think women are overwhelmingly disproportionately victimized is because they look at wrong or biased data. Excluding prisons entirely, approximately equal proportions of men and women are raped every year - only rape of men by women isn't counted at all, or is shuffled off under a different category of victimization. Men make up a huge proportion of IPV victims, but thats discounted and no (or nearly no) resources are available. A man is more likely to be arrested than his…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:23 AM
3

This year on "Oprah's favorite things": Oxygen, diapers, puncture resistant fabric, tubing, polycarbonate plastic, clean rooms, and rocket fuel.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 10:14 PM
15

Female victims of the most common forms of FGM are capable of orgasm & normal sexual function. Male victims of the most common forms of MGM lose tissue that at the very least is functionally equivalent to the external clitoral glans, in addition to other structures.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 04:25 AM
2

Nice, thanks!
/r/MensRights08/02/18 04:13 AM
6

No, actually. Women s/p FGC/FGM are still functionally capable of orgasm & sexual function. Additionally, MGM removes The frenulum & ridged band, which are analogous in sensory function to the external glans clitoris, and have protective & secretory functions similar to the labia & vaginal epithelia.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 06:06 AM
6

It's actually significantly worse than all type 1, definitely at least some of 2. The frenulum & ridged band are analogous in function to the external glans clitoris, and have protective & secretory functions similar to the labia & vaginal epithelia.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 06:04 AM
1

/r/MurderedByWords
/r/MensRights25/01/18 08:00 AM
1

Plot twist - the poison bean was actually full of insulin, which would have killed anyone else but was just enough to counteract a jar full of jellybeans. Death makes fools of us all.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 12:35 AM
3

So sweet, you must believe that rape happens to men and women at an equal rate. Where's your evidence for this? Oh man, this is actually really interesting. Let's unpack this a little and use your data to answer this question. Looking at the 12 month data for women, we have 1,270,000 total rapes. They break that down further into categories that overlap so we can't realistically exclude attempted, but not completed assaults. For men, we see 1,267,000 victims of rape in the 12 month study period …
/r/MensRights17/01/18 01:06 AM
3

Interesting post! To minimize the wall of text I'm not going to quote whole paragraphs, but I'll (try to) address everything. More concerning to me in some ways is the very real possibility that HBC switches off an olfactory early warning system Interesting read, do you have a link to the primary paper? I'd also point out that 1) the study needs go be replicated & validated before it's credible, & 2) it modifies, but doesn't "shut off" the MHC comparison. The article is somewhat ambiguous whethe…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 03:54 AM
1

....the quoted segment doesn't support your claim. Please quote something I've posted in this thread that does or admit you made that up. To help you along, I made no claim that their anecdote was sufficient evidence for anything other than what he observed, let alone the only one. Thats you putting words in my mouth. Stop that. I was correcting your misreading (whether intentional or not) of the original comment. Their anecdote was an observation. Stating "this is what I have seen". Thats it.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 07:03 PM
7

They don't need that evidence, the burden is on the asserting side to support their claim. They also aren't trying to anecdotally refute anything, stop being disingenuous. The anecdote they posted about most posts being anec-data is observational. The "study" is garbage: the only thing a paper with n=2 proves is that the author needs to retake their study design classes.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 06:22 PM
3

Ugh.... that case still hurts me inside. I feel bad for both of them (the driver waaaaay more), and she deserved it but crashing/burning that close to the finish line is brutal.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 09:02 PM
8

Hey cool, a bigoted troll. Enjoy your downvotes I guess.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 06:34 PM
6

As I stated in my original post, those studies are garbage. Their claims aren't even valid for the study population in HIV endemic areas of Africa, and definitely aren't valid for Western nations. I'm also not aware of any large RCTs or metas examining condom use in men who've undergone MGM. In any case the negligible decrease in absolute risk compared to condom use alone absolutely does not merit surgical intervention. Add to that the number needed to treat ans you - again - have to mutilate hu…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 01:44 PM
9

There is evidence for the benefits of FGM, especially in regards to HIV the quality of the evidence is equivalent to that for HIV & MGM. Any circumcision done on a boy under 18 that's not medically necessary (almost never) is mutilation. That is the fact of the matter. You can disagree but it's like disagreeing that water is wet. As I covered above there are no relevant benefits for infants/children. The number of boys you'd have to mutilate to prevent one UTI or pathologic phimosis is in the hu…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 05:04 AM
11

Firstly, you can expect similar benefits re: STIs from FGM that includes removal of the clitoral prepuce, since that's also a potential place bacteria/viruses can be trapped. Bonus points for infibulation where the majority of the vagina is sewn shut until marriage, makes it almost impossible to have sex, so would surely reduce STIs (if you read that and thought about how barbaric it seems....that's kind of the point). Secondly - the supposed medical benefits of MG are negligible and do not meet…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 12:23 AM
1

If they were aware, they would be able to remember. Memory is an integral part of consciousness. You might want to try reading what I actually posted. They do have memory, they just don't convert short term memory to long term. By no stretch of the imagination are these people not conscious. I don't know what colloquial definition you're operating under, but it's not consistent with medical understanding of consciousness. I guess you better redo that research on people who have 0% cerebral hemis…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 11:29 AM
1

That's because you're mobile like a sleepwalker but not conscious. Consciousness requires working episodic memory because episodic memory is how we have awareness of our current moment (e.g. consciousness). Nope. Someone who is blackout drunk is intoxicated to the point that they will not convert short term memory to long term memory (simplificiation, but it gets the point across). They are aware of what happens in the moment, what happened 5 minutes ago, and are able to perform tasks and have c…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 12:37 AM
2

Sure I am. That's why I support mens rights and have posts on this sub going back to when I created this account 2+ years ago. Mensrights was one of, if not #1, my first ever posts, I'd been a lurker for a while but was inspired to contribute. But I'm really just a feminist troll. Thats why I'm always posting about le patriarchy in feminist subs. Oh wait, no, that ones not true actually. You're the problem with this board and the movement. You are a gender ideologue. You're a gender feminist is …
/r/MensRights30/10/17 03:13 PM
2

I'm a teacher at heart, and while I doubt you'll listen to anything not in lockstep with you, there's always a chance. Other people might read and learn something as well. However, regarding your opinion of me? No, I don't care because your opinions don't matter to me. I'm sorry if that was confusing for you. If anything is a danger to mens rights, it's victim complex ideologues who refuse to see the reality of a situation if it can be twisted into a gender issue. To claim that I'm a danger is a…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 01:50 PM
2

Not really any confusion, I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I will give you some free advice though - if you want to insult someone, you should first make sure they care about your opinion of them, or at the very least have some regard for what you think. By the way, where did you get your medical degree, since austism spectrum disorder is a medical diagnosis? What feminist arguments exactly am I being swayed or tricked by? Feminist arguments, in my experience, are categorised…
/r/MensRights29/10/17 07:05 PM
2

I don't think so, and I'm fairly sure I'd recognize it, but what makes you think that? I'd be happy to discuss it with you, or answer any questions you might have. On the other hand if you just wanted to insult me, then I think that intent on top of the poor execution speaks for itself.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 04:31 PM
0

It's not a negligible impact on womens lives either, just because they have more options. Reproductive rights is a gender issue, availability of contraception can be as well, but the specific issue being addressed in this discussion is the requirement of spousal consent for sterilization. That is something both men and women face that causes significant frustration and problems for both. Spousal consent and barriers to sterilization are not gendered issues.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 03:53 PM
1

That page was the best writeup, which is why I linked it. Regardless, men are covered under the same ruling. Thats one reason why there are no state laws requiring spousal consent.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 03:51 PM
3

That definitely makes the context worse for men, but at the same time the primary issue of seeking sterilization & barriers to that is not a gendered issue, both men and women experience this regularly. I do want reproductive rights for men ala LPS or something like that, and again it does intersect with contraceptive rights but these are separate issues IMO.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 02:00 PM
3

That page is not shit, you're just being unreasonable. 50 seperate irrelevant discussions are meaningless when any state law requiring spousal consent would be unconstitutional. There aren't any state laws that I'm aware of for exactly that reason. If you'd like I could list out all 50 states and just put "no laws requiring spousal consent - unconstitutional" after each one. Asking for a per hospital discussion is flat out disingenuous. There's not a significant enough difference between male an…
/r/MensRights29/10/17 11:16 AM
2

No problem, glad you found it informative.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 02:29 AM
9

This page has a good breakdown. The TL;DR version is that there can't be a law requiring spousal consent, nor can public hospitals have a policy requiring it. Individual physicians and private organizations are not bound by this rule and can set (mostly) whatever requirements they wish. It's highly regional as well. In my area, no OBs require it for tubals, nor do urologists require it for vasecomties. If you go to the next state over (NM) you'll find it's much more popular in some areas. Additi…
/r/MensRights29/10/17 01:49 AM
6

You do realize women frequently run into similar issues when seeking sterilization right? This isn't really a gender issue
/r/MensRights29/10/17 12:54 AM
2

Commenters in the original thread did make the bodily autonomy point. Also, women seeking sterilization can run into similar problems, on top of doctors not being willing to operate on younger women (which I generally don't have any issue with). There's not usually any more outrage there than there was here IME. The abortion comparison is also inappropriate. There's no inherent risk to your life or damage to your body from intact vas deferens. There's also not an extrmely short legal timeline to…
/r/MensRights29/10/17 12:52 AM
1

Sorry to disturb your cognitive dissonance, but you're wrong. Also, you've been vaginally raped by at least 3 porcupines, you just don't realize it because of your conditioning.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 11:00 PM
2

If we exclude spankings as a kid (which were about 50/50 between mom & dad, and also very rare) then I've had 3 physical altercations in my life. Two I started (Me Vs a bully, both male) and one I was attacked (also by a guy). Violence in my life from anyone is vanishingly rare, so idk why it'd be surprising that out of ~10000 days of life, in which 3 have been violent (0.0003% of days lived) none of them have involved women. It's not even statistically odd if we assume women are equally (or mor…
/r/MensRights28/10/17 08:05 PM
5

Typically pathological phimosis doesn't need surgery unless medical therapy has already failed. Even then, less destructive techniques are available that preserve function. Actual medically necessary circumcisions are incredibly rare.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:59 PM
4

Creating difficulties urinating means it was likely pathological phimosis rather than physiological. The age at which the foreskin detaches from the glans will vary widely, with the vast majority being separated by puberty. However a physiologic phimosis will not present with urinary difficulty usually. Still doesn't merit circumcision, particularly not without trying topical steroids, or at the very least skin sparing techniques like dorsal slits, z's, ect.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:58 PM
1

It absolutely is true, you're insane if you think you know a life better than the one's who's lived it. That, or delusional. As for white knighting? WTF are you even on about. In the future if you want to have a discussion, try and make coherent points, or at least less pants-on-head dumb ones. Either way, have a good one I guess.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:47 PM
2

I have never been slapped in my face by anyone ever in my entire life. Not on the bicep shoulder, arm, ect. either. I haven't been conditioned - I recognize slapping as violent no matter who does it. Oh wait - one time my wife slapped me on the back a few times when some water went down the wrong pipe and I couldn't stop coughing. Does that count? But as far as physical violence, no.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:16 PM
3

Every man on the planet has. Also a man, also married. Have never been slapped by a woman ever. Unless smacks on the ass during sex count? But that'd be pretty nonsensical.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:35 PM
11

As a SAHM/D you are absolutely not a nurse, secretary, chef or chauffer. /u/ChaosOpen is mostly right (though somewhat overexaggerated) in that the job is not hard, and largely work at your own pace. Most of these tasks you're listing require more work for initial set up, but then are almost automatic. Inventory, scheduling, med mgmt, cleaning, all cooking/meal stuff are all rote tasks.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 06:29 PM
2

I get that, really I do - and I'm totally in support of free or low cost bc just because of the ROI. But at the same time it's incredibly disingenuous to paint it as anything other than female privilege, legal rights afforded to women (I'm not sating you did this, just clarifying my view). The removal of such is also not a war on women. A spade is a spade.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 06:04 PM
15

2010-1960 is 50 years, not 70. That said, I largely agree that providing free or low cost BC is a great investment. It absolutely is not sexist or a war on women to remove that benefit however, because its putting us in a state of legal equality.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 04:35 PM
2

Idk how much selling happens, but I can almost guarantee the doctor isn't seeing much (if any) of it. My experience is admitedly limited to the few dozen pedis I've worked with @ 2-3 major hospitals (one being the only children's hospital for 300 miles in any direction). That said, they do get paid a several hundred for a very quick procedure, but the tissue was always disposed of if it wasn't sent to pathology (happened once that I saw). Any sale would likely profit the hospital more than the d…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 11:12 AM
9

I'm a fourth year med student, but not quite an MD yet so keep that in mind. That said, most of what u/boxsterguy said above is fairly accurate, the only big mistake is that it is possible (though rare) for boys to develop pathological phimosis prior to puberty. They are correct that circumcision is almost never needed, alternative techniques like dorsal slitting are similarly effective without removing much tissue. There is no medical justification for routine infant circumcision. The health be…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 11:05 AM
2

If you want to discuss the severity of crimes and the semantics of the word rape, I'd encourage you to do so. That said, I'll need you to actually flesh out some points if you'd like a response.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 08:38 PM
1

I'm glad you've found a way to describe your moral principles, however the scale you posted doesn't apply to me (as in, I fit none of the categories listed in the pre/post or conventional stages. In any case, it's still not what the discussion is about. You can disagree with the morality of consent laws, but that does not change the fact that despite it being relatively arbitrary, consent is defined as a matter of law. The law makes the reality, regardless of your moral opinion of it. (if we're …
/r/MensRights30/09/17 08:22 PM
2

What level would that be, and why should I? (serious question)
/r/MensRights30/09/17 08:07 PM
4

The representatives of the people of each state are empowered to set their own limits for what they deem acceptable, and enact that into law. Different states have different laws, it's illegal to set of most fireworks in Ohio, yet the exact same thing is perfectly legal where I live.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 07:59 PM
5

It doesn't matter why, or that it is stupid. And no, consent in the context of sex, the legal definition is what matters. Anything else is colloquial bullshit mired in so much subjectivity, conflicting definitions, and irrelevance that it's almost worthless to use. If the law says 20 year olds can't consent to sex, that is the reality. Because consent is not an objective reality that exists beyond it's definition, it is a concept we created and defined and the definition in the law trumps any ot…
/r/MensRights30/09/17 06:21 PM
14

Absent a constitutional challenge, yes it would mean 20 year olds can't consent. Consent, or more specifically the age of consent, is defined in this context as a matter of law. Thats the end of the line - it is whatever the law says it is, and if it says 20 year olds cant give consent then that is the Truth. It being incredibly stupid doesn't matter, there are many incredibly stupid laws.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 05:31 PM
2

Wikipedia page. The relevant bit (IMO) at the end of the intro: Contemporary issues of anti-psychiatry include freedom versus coercion, racial and social justice, iatrogenic effects of antipsychotic medications (unintentionally induced by medical therapy), personal liberty, social stigma, and the right to be different. IMO like most groups they have some good and some bad points. I think a lot of MRAs particularly would align with the last pt wrt the overmedication/patholigizing of boys.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 10:44 PM
4

Pointing out that your claim is logically incoherent is not refusing to listen, for the record.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 08:26 PM
4

STEM: Science, technology, engineering & Math. Definitely S/M, possibly also TE depending on how you look at it. S: Anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and the application of the above. Clinical & Bench research done by MD/DO & Medical students regularly. Medicine is inherently a scientific profession. T: Advanced imaging, nuclear medicine, medical devices, ect. This one is admittedly weaker, but most doctors will have to have an intimate understanding of technology & it's application to their fie…
/r/MensRights12/09/17 07:02 AM
2

Nw, hope it helped. If/when you get records and find terms/anatomy you don't understand, wikipedia & Teach me Anatomy are great for anatomy, Up to Date & Medscape are good for general & detailed info, and sometimes procedure descriptions. If you're stuck on something or have questions you can reply here or PM me. I'm not your doctor and I can't give you medical advice, but I can try to explain things.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 01:42 PM
2

Depends on when you were born, and what the hospital was using for records. If they had an EMR you may get more detailed records, but likely the hospital still had paper charts. In which case your notes will be much briefer (MD daily progress note being 1-5 lines). Records will likely include: Birth note (Baby boy x, born at y, ht/wt, ect.), tons of nursing notes(fairly brief), Physician notes (1 detailed, the rest extremely brief), discharge notes, and any/all other documents they have. The pro…
/r/MensRights11/09/17 09:30 AM
5

So erections and ejaculation are spinal things (there's brain input as well, but that's optional), you could have a headless guy and as long as there was enough blood pressure & the spinal nerves aren't dead - boom. Add to that blood pooling, and the local chemical environment can be pretty favorable for random muscle spasms, twitches, ect. Sperm viability, I'm not sure but probably not longer than a few days at most, extrapolating from the fact that sperm can remain viable after ejaculation ins…
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:42 AM
3

Re: posthumous erections, I can confirm. When we did our cadaver dissections many of the male cadavers had engorged dicks. Made the pelvis dissection easier at least.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:13 AM
13

What's he got? Nothin but rekt, 40's style.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:26 PM
4

Not the person you replied to, but I'd imagine so. I don't see any problems either - It's the same principle, that you can't be forced to share your home with someone you don't want to live with. I personally may disagree with their choices but IMO they have the right to make them. Note that this only applies to live in landlords, which are something of a unique case.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 03:10 PM
1

Are men not big enough to just leave an abusive relationship? being the original argument? I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim women are big enough to leave....but I'll grant that I've seen the "Why don't they leave" bit before....still doesn't do anything to diminish your hypocrisy here though...."Other people do dumb stuff" is not a justification to also do dumb stuff.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 10:32 PM
1

Ah, the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense, you really don't see trolling of this caliber anymore. Still waiting on any semblance of a rational defense of your position btw.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 10:13 PM
1

So....you had the opportunity to make a rational argument, and decided to do a 180. Ironic.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 10:10 PM
1

pretty baseless assumption there - leaving the home is not always the rational choice.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 09:58 PM
3

Made my 2nd reply already, to the same comment as the first (replying to myself feels odd). It's a long read though, I may have gone overboard.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:32 PM
8

Ok, let's get started. So to you... Scientific studies have nothing to do with science. Love this statement. Please quote where I said this, or kindly admit you made it up. There is very little to almost no argument within the medical/scientific community that health benefits exist for getting circumcised. There are some health benefits, absolutely. There are also concrete risks. There are also inescapable side effects of the procedure. Some or all of these are often exaggerated and overblown, e…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:10 PM
6

Holy condescending rant, batman! There's a lot to unpack here, and some of it might even make sense. Of course, you did also make up a bunch of stuff too...and your hands must be tired from putting all those words in my mouth. I'll type up a more detailed reply in the next hour or so, I'm on call till 5.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:54 PM
7

Being against MGM is not anti science....and really has nothing to do with anti-vax. Wtf are you talking about?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:24 PM
7

That depends on if you're referring to homologous anatomy or functional anatomy. In terms of embryological origin (homologous) you're decently close, but in terms of function the external glans clitoris is not equivalent to the glans penis. The functional equivalent to the external clit is the ridged band/frenulum, which is typically destroyed in MGM. So functionally, MGM is at least equivalent to external clitoridectomy. However the foreskin also has protective and lubricating functions, simila…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 05:19 AM
1

I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but do you have any specific cases you cam reference? Because I couldn't find any. The reason I'm asking is that I'm a medical student, just starting my Pediatrics rotation so this is gonna come up, and I'd like to be as informed as possible
/r/MensRights28/02/17 07:28 PM
1

I don't think that particular argument has been tested - all of the cases I was able to dig that were won/settled were a result of the procedure being done incorrectly, faulty equipment, or improper consent from the parents. In any case, even if a court accepted that argument (which I doubt), there would almost certainly be no liability on the part of the doctor/hospital, though there would likely be liability going forward from when the ruling is delivered for any children cut under that court'…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 09:38 AM
1

Not exactly. Phimosis is simply the inability to retract the foreskin over the glans. Physiologic phimosis is normal from birth until around puberty, and every male has had phsyiologic phimosis at some point. Pathologic phimosis however is never normal and requires treatment. Pathologic phimosis is very rare in pre-pubescent males, but not nonexistant. Depending on the severity, surgery may be indicated, but a complete circumcision is almost never necessary, and function sparing procedures like …
/r/MensRights27/02/17 09:25 AM
2

Here's the relevant part: Agency on eliminating FGM seeks to draw distinction between it and MGM. Color me surprised. Showing possible links between circumcision and lower rates of HIV and HPV is not bias. Sure, except that the studies, most notably the ones done in Africa, are so utterly fucked that they have no actual validity. And even if we ignore that the papers are garbage, similar links can be demonstrated with FC. How people like you can turn something that might help people into a negat…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:51 AM
2

No, I'd prefer it if you take my point for what it was; that these are definitions of "circumcision" as given by doctors, as opposed to the guy I responded to responded to who searched dictionaries to find one definition that agreed with him. Ok....and female circumcision is also something that is defined by doctors. The term "female circumcision" has been all but abandoned in favor of "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting". Calling it "female circumcision" is disingenuous at be…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:15 AM
2

There's a difference between a general information article for laymen & a reference for professionals, even if under the same parent organization. But whatever, fair point. Care to engage with the rest of my comment? If you'd like I can reference other MD databases.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 02:32 AM
2

Your mayo clinic link is not a valid source - you link to their procedures section, and since they obviously don't perform female circumcision it won't be listed. Same for webmd, given it's a US based resource & female circumcision isn't legal here. So your only actual source is one paper from the Indian journal of STDs and AIDS. Hardly an unbiased source. Female circumcision is an accepted clinical term on the spectrum of female genital cutting, just as male circumcision is an accepted clinical…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 02:08 AM
2

Thanks for further proving the point. Keep on pushin' that bullshit quotient higher. Night night!
/r/MensRights06/02/17 10:34 AM
2

So, for anyone who comes along, I'm going to break this bullshit down. Oh Darling POSTV... "Oh darling", called it! Also you typo'd the name, but that's not super relevant. Are you and your mates, from /r./AgainstMensRights is it (?) And here we have it, anyone who isn't on your side 100% is just a troll. For funzies, here is my karma breakdown by sub. You'll notice AMR isn't there, but this sub is #5. The only thing even remotely close is the 59 from twoX, of which 51 came from this post. Hardl…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 10:25 AM
2

Don't bother replying to /u/imnotmrabut , all they do is spam this board, accuse anyone who disagrees with them even slightly of trolling (ironic), and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's point. At this point I'd recommend just RES tagging them so you can just downvote and move on in the future without wasting your time with their nonsense. Don't forget to disable inbox replies - they won't have anything of substance to say, other than to likely call you "darling trolly" and sidestep your point …
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:32 AM
9

It's not really /u/docfelt 's fault, if they're getting their medical training in the US then he's likely received ~0 education of the foreskin outside of maybe a week in gross anatomy. And most of what has been taught if they've gone through peds/family is likely wrong. The state of US medical education as it relates to circumcision is pretty sad, given that there's no actual medical benefit or indication for it outside of severe phimosis. And even in severe cases, a full circumcision can be av…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:35 AM
2

Well, a lot of things that land you on the registry are strict liability crimes, which are by definition miscarriages of justice and should be abolished. But aside from that, it's absolutely not black and white. Sex with a minor - 16 year old and 18 year old. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you're state is retarded now your life is ruined. And that's not even touching on outright fraud, underage boys/girls with fake IDs in bars, where the person taking them home for the night has no poss…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 01:32 AM
2

Yeah, that really sucks - fuck that school. I've only seen a few girls with ADD so far, but from the medical side they're not really treated any differently. When I was on child psych last month, I was in a family meeting with a boy with ADD (middle school age) as well as his parents, several people from the school on conference call (a teacher, special needs coordinator, one other I can't remember, maybe on of the asst. principals?), & the child psych resident. The school was pushing really har…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 04:58 PM
1

More oversight on the prescription of ADD This one is well on it's way to being done - medical students are trained now to refer/perform psychometric testing to assess impulsiveness, hyperactivity, distractability, ect. before prescribing stimulant medication. It'll take some time before the practice reaches the front lines of primary care, but it's headed that way. On a less optimistic note, studies show that older doctors can be 5-10 years behind on current guidelines, like giving Abx for vira…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 03:57 PM
1

"Woozles, fun to say, not to prop up your points!"
/r/MensRights17/08/16 03:16 AM
1

Fantastic, exactly what I was looking for! Thanks!
/r/MensRights16/08/16 11:45 PM
1

Studies done at the 5-yr mark have actually shown an increase in HIV and other STD transmission rates. Wait, really? Can you link me to some? I've been pointing out that the 1 yr Africa HIV studies are crap for a long time, and those studies would really help drive that home.
/r/MensRights16/08/16 08:30 PM
2

I don't really agree with a lot of what they wrote though, a bunch of it is either misleading or outright bad science. I do agree with the birth control issue, we definitely need more data and better recommendations regarding that. A lot of the rest though is bunk. As for not wanting to perform abortions on obese patients, I don't find her claims reasonable. The data we do have suggests similar outcomes, but that data pool is extremely small and thus, limited. We do know that obese patients are …
/r/MensRights02/08/16 09:37 AM
1

Removing prison rape will end up with ~ gender parity in offenders. I sort of agree that it shouldn't be tracked with general population, but proson victimization is something that absolutely needs to be tracked.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 08:04 PM
1

the "50/50" stat is b/s mras tell themselves, Except that it's a statistical fact... i said it's more likely a rapist will be male and there has to be a reason for that, its not statistically insignificant At least some of it is a result of prison rape, which narrows the gap significantly (possibly making it disappear).I haven't really seen any good evidence that men are more likely to rape, much less that there's an reason inherent to being male.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 06:26 PM
1

why the majority of rapists are men Except that they aren't....was ~50/50 last I checked. And even if it's not 50/50 it's not so skewed that the claim that rape is inherent to only male biology cannot be supported by the evidence.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 05:04 PM
0

Those two exceptions, and every other that I'm aware of, are extremely limited exceptions where a patient is not able or competent to consent. In those scenarios, you're also almost always acting in the presumed best interests of the patient. That is in no way is comparable to ignoring a competent adult's consent and violating their body anyway, nor can that former be used to justify the latter. It is not the "fucking pillar" of anything. Consent is under autonomy, one of the 4 pillars of medica…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 02:01 AM
-1

Any medical professional, from an MD on down to a EMT or even a CNA who participates in any way in these disgustingly unethical procedures should have thier licenses, degrees, and certifications stripped and then be thrown in jail for battery &/or sexual assault. This is never ever ok under any circumstances, not even to save a busload of orphans and their newly adopted puppies. There's a reason consent & autonomy are one of the fucking pillars of medical ethics. And I say this as someone in the…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:10 AM
1

That's a condom catheter, though you'd want to change those out pretty frequently.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:03 AM
2

Not the person you're responding to, but you may also want to look at this article, where the authors delve specifically into chronic epididymitis. Including classifications & types (eg, inflammatory, obstructive, or infective. This is a follow up article. Some associations from that article that may not have come up: Chronic inflammation months after acute STI infection Tuberculoid granulomas Drug induced (Amioderone) Inflammatory epididymitis may not have a clear cause. Academic urologists (@ …
/r/MensRights09/07/16 01:13 AM
3

You're on the right track, if we assume that logic is analagous to reals, then we can use the inequality (heh) Feels > reals to start building a system of equations to solve for the logic term. Sadly, nobody has ever found the value of the logic term in that course.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 11:15 PM
4

I get what you're saying, but I'm conflicted. Given, my experience is pretty limited (3rd yr) but it's been ~70/30 F/M requesting chaperones. Haven't done OB rotation yet though, so that'll probably skew it.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 08:39 PM
11

Medical students are taught that they need a chaperone in the room for sensitive exams, regardless of the gender of the patient or student/doctor. Male & Female students need a chaperone for prostate exams, for example, and the chaperone can be male or female (usually, but not always the same gender as the pt).
/r/MensRights26/06/16 07:18 PM
2

It depends a lot on the context. If they're ruining decades of marriage, I'd call them selfish and reprehensible. I still don't think that justifies violence though.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 04:46 AM
3

Justified? No, I don't think so. Violence is very rarely just, generally when necessary to defend yourself or others. I could understand a violent reaction, on some level, but it's not something I would consider justified or would condone.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 02:57 AM
1

Re: your side note In the US, the safe drinking limits come from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). They're based on studies of alcohol use disorders, and like that link states, only 2 out of 100 people with alcohol use disorders fall into what the NIAAA has classified as "low-risk" drinking. I'd assume the UK has something analogous. As for the men vs women thing - I'll agree that it's moronic for a venue to pre-restrict what they're willing to serve someone based o…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 04:31 AM
1

Do you have source for that? Because that is not what your link says. There was 0 comparison of pre/post op, so they can make NO claim about the efficacy of surgery. They only compared outcomes to gen pop. Please read your source - they only compared post op trans people to the general population.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 03:12 AM
1

That's not actually what your source says. There are several issues with the Sweden cohort study, but in this particular issue, they're comparing pre-op to gen pop and post op to gen pop, not pre-op to post op. This study is methodologically incapable of determining the effectiveness of surgical transition in anything other than a binary 0 or 100 sense. For example, if a pre op MTF is 20x more likely than gen pop to commit suicide, and post op is 2x more likely, then surgery clearly is very effi…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 01:30 AM
1

females, are indeed, the origin of life. 100% utterly false, with not even a grain of truth. This just proves you don't know jack shit about biology. The original life forms, as far as the evidence & theory are concerned, were single celled asexual organisms. Not male, not female. which is why abrahamic religious men write their creation stories with women coming from men. men's ribs, for example. lol. Not only does that make no sense, but when I want solid sources about the origin of biology, I…
/r/MensRights31/05/16 08:42 PM
1

No, it's not. It's not straight anything, because any actual data has been interpreted through the aforementioned bullshit lens. I mean...rape arms and mind control? Are you kidding me? It's ridiculous, sensationalized pop-psuedoscience with next to no basis in actual science. Any actual grains of truth have been bent so far as to be meaningless. Taking things from other species and attempting to apply them universal to all species without anything actually showing that connection...Not to menti…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 10:21 PM
1

Yeah, hut then if it's in a poor backwater town they now have a large incentive to find him guilty so that they're not out that $. Maybe if w/e local county had to pay so much to jail someone that its more expensive to find them guilty than not?
/r/MensRights26/05/16 02:45 PM
2

Ugh...that's fucked. I hope things turn around for him. A civil suit is gonna be hard to win without some very solid proof that she maliciously lied, which also sucks. Imo the state should be liable for all the costs of someone who isn't convicted. Though that'd probably just make them fight harder for convictions...bleh
/r/MensRights26/05/16 02:06 PM
2

Gotcha, I see where you're coming from. Agreed that when it's demonstrably false that the accused should be set free ASAP. Sadly, for most people (especially men), "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.".
/r/MensRights26/05/16 03:02 AM
1

Ok, fair enough, but it's not a false arrest if the police have probable cause. In the case of DV, the call itself is usually legally sufficient, and with sexual assault the accusation is likely enough. I agree that sucks, but it's not a false arrest. Arrested for a false accusation !=false arrest.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 02:46 AM
2

and also allow a court where the staggeringly low conviction rate is raised. I don't think that's possible without fundamentally destroying our justice system. Frankly, if the system is working perfectly, the conviction rate should be lower than most other crimes, given that the only evidence establishing the critical elements of the crime is the testimony of the alleged victim, which is countered by the testimony of the accused. All else being equal, that's 50/50 - significantly lower than beyo…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 12:42 AM
1

The final update (posted yesterday) can be found here. That post also has a link to the first update, where she keys her car and then tries to frame the OP for it. Ninja edit: Just saw the comment with the updates in it, my bad.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 07:46 PM
2

That's not science, it's advocacy research bullshit interpreted though and equally bullshit feminist lens. If you'd like to actually discuss the science behind behaviors of sexual reproduction, you should cut the shitty appeals to emotion and directly link to actual studies & papers. Most of the animal data in that 'article' is misleading or outright wrong, and almost none of the data on humans is correct. To be fair, that's only in the part of that thing I could actually force myself to read th…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 03:43 AM
3

Neat paper, thanks! We had a few lectures over this our neurosciences course. It's actually pretty cool how well the vestibular system & cerebellum/basal ganglia can adapt to maintain stability, even in the face of (relatively) rapid changes in height.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 03:48 PM
1

Where did I suggest that? Or is that your characterization of the accuser, because I think your brush is a little broad. Sure, they probably would think twice if we instituted a policy of knee jerk emotional retribution instead of actual justice. Hey, if we tell people we'll gouge their eye out if they blind somebody else in at least one eye, that behavior would probably go down too. Bottom line: sentence mirroring is only about retribution, it is not just. It is the opposite of just and is no d…
/r/MensRights15/05/16 01:42 AM
1

Accusing someone of jaywalking obviously is more serious than accusing someone of mirder, but that doesn't make the second deserving of the same penalty as murder. I'm not saying the two should have the same penalty, but making the claim that a false accusation, even a malicious one should have an equal sentence to the crime they accused someone can only be motivated by retribution. It's not justice.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 11:45 PM
1

Retribution is the only motivation to make the sentence equal to what the accuser would have/did get. I'm absolutely fine with treating it as a serious crime that deserves prison time on its own merit, not as eye-for-an-eye 'justice'. That should be the deterrent.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:43 PM
1

Once Y occurs they should be released, but an anonymous system can't be accountable. There are too many people involved and it's too easy to fudge anon identifiers.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:05 PM
1

Her suffering prison for the same time he did, or would have if convicted, is the definition of retribution. Retribution by itself is objectionable, but understandable. But state enacted rertibution is monstrous and has no place is a decent society, much less in a justice system. As for anonymity - my objection wasn't about fairness. I do think the process should be fair, in that no one should have anonymity. Because anonymity in the justice system is anathema to a free and just society. Transpa…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 01:55 PM
1

I don't think so, though. Transparency is essential to keeping the system accountable. Also, unless all arrests are anonymous it'd essentially be an admission that they were arrested for a sex crime. With anonymity, theres no real way to tell if the trial actually happened on y date, other than trusting the state to be honest.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 01:51 PM
2

I see where you're coming from, but respectfully I just can't support your position. Rape shield laws are another miscarriage of justice, and I'd much rather see them tossed out than expanded. I hate that an accusation is all it takes to ruin your future, but I don't believe that dismantling our justice system and the principles that (should) keep it honest is a good solution. I vehemently disagree that rape/sexual crimes are deserving of special treatment by the system, and that's something I w…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 01:47 PM
1

I agree with the spirit of your post, in that false accusations are a real, serious issue that needs to be dealt with. However, there are some points I disagree with. Sentencing: disagree that the penalty should be the same, for a few reasons. Firstly, I think sentences are too severe for most crimes already. More than 10 years in prison is monstrous unless the person is incapable of ever rejoining society, in which case they honestly belong in a mental institution. Second, handing out a sentenc…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 05:08 AM
2

Guy wants a prescription for T. Googles symptoms of low T, maybe asks around online about what to say. Goes to the doctor, runs through their script. Doctor does a blood test - comes back normal. Tells patient, recommends alternatives but tells them that HRT isn't appropriate for the case. Guy procedes to put Dr on blast for dismissing his low results as normal. Dr legally can't respond b/c HIPAA. And here we are. I don't really think it's likely that the above happens very ofte, but there's rea…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:13 AM
1

Really depends on how you define women, which I tend to think of as more gender related, while sex is female. In any case, turners patients are intersex, not female, though they are usually closest to female anatomy. Again, there is very often failure of the ovary to develop (agenesis/dysgensis, a "streak ovary"), so it's not functional. That is to say, a single X isn't enough for female development. The reason single X survives and single Y doesn't is that the X isn't just a sex chromosome, it'…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 11:57 PM
2

I don't so much mind the misanthrope bit, or the 'slightly autistic' (even if I think that's BS), but this was the kicker: I personally regard men to be a pathological aberration...
/r/MensRights13/05/16 11:34 PM
2

Was writing an edit to respond to that when I got the reply notification, so I'll just paste here. I looked @ the quora question, though I'll ignore the bigotry from the responder Abhay for now. TL;DR holy crap this turned into a long post, dug into that second article hardcore. Ty for reading and for inspiring me to dig into this, it's fascinating. The bottom line is that there doesn't actually appear to be a 'default' sex - SRY/TDF are needed for male development, but Rspo1->Wnt4/Bcat are need…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 11:12 PM
2

I actually had to look this guy up - we don't actually learn about who discovered things anymore. He discovered AMH/MIS, and that in the absence of Y/SRY that the offspring will usually develop as phenotypically female. So in the absence of male signalling, you develop female, but that doesn't mean that the embryo starts out female - it starts out with indifferent gonads, and develops both sets of precursors structures.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 10:16 PM
1

It depends...if you're talking genetic/chromosonal sex, then it's (usually) a simple binary yes/no: Is Y present. Yes = male, No = female. Then you get into the phenotypical sex, which is what's honestly more relevant in development since there are many things that can make the phenotype the opposite of the sex chromosome genotype - congenital adrenal hyperplasias (17a, 11b, 21), Turner's, Klinefelter's, 5-alpha, androgen insensitivity, aromatase deficiency, Kallmann's, True & psuedohermaphrodit…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:58 PM
3

That's a myth actually. Embryos don't start out as female and then become male, they start out undifferentiated and develop from there into either female or male (or rarely - intersex). SRY codes for a protein called TDF (testis determining factor). TDF causes the (at that point undifferentiated) sex chord cells in the genital ridges/indifferent gonad to develop into leydig cells, which then secrete anti-mullerian hormone (AMH). AMH prevents the wolffian ducts from degenerating, and causing the …
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:21 PM
3

That's not a fact, because they don't. The genital tubercule is first recognizable external genital structure, and is neither male nor female, at ~4 weeks gestation. It later develops into either clitoral or penile tissue by 9-10 weeks. The labioscrotal swellings are another example of early undifferentiated tissue (that come from the tubercle) that become either the scrotum, or labia majora.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 09:04 PM
3

Except that males are not genetically modified (females). To establish that, you'd have to prove that the Y was originally an X that was altered. But we don't know that. We do know that the Y is almost entirely dedicated to male development, but also has highly conserved regions for pairing with the X during cell division. It's also worth pointing out that people with Tuner syndrome are genetically 45XO, or a mosiac of 45XO/46XX. 45XO is genetically intersex, not female. A single X is usually no…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 08:16 PM
1

Bartlet for America!
/r/MensRights08/05/16 01:49 AM
4

There aren't really any relevant implications outside of medicine, and those are pretty insignificant. When a female conceives (regardless if birth occurs or not) there is lateral transfer of genes from the foetus to the mother. Sort of - there is transfer of cells, and many of these cells will be destroyed by the mother's immune system, especially after pregnancy when it's no lonher suppressed. The DNA of the fetus is not incorporated into the genome of the mother. The mother becomes geneticall…
/r/MensRights26/04/16 08:44 AM
1

Is there any knowledge to what actually happens when pathological phimosis occurs later in life, say in an adult? Is it similar to balanitis? Balanitis can be one of the causes, yes. Pretty much anything causing inflammation or fibroblast proliferation can result in phimosis. Some other examples - forced retraction, catheterization, infection (often a complication of diabetes). What seems so strange to me is that there are people who stretch what little skin is left to form a "new" foreskin but …
/r/MensRights13/04/16 06:17 AM
2

You're generally right, pathological phimosis is a pretty rare condition, even in uncircumcised men/boys. Medical options (steroids, ect.) should usually be exhausted first before surgical interventions are considered. These then go from least to most invasive, though some cases don't allow for this. A dorsal slit (prepuceplasty) is one of those options, as is complete removal of the tissue. I'd honestly prefer if dorsal slit to become a more popular method, but there are a bare handful of studi…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 01:04 AM
3

It was relevant to the topic & this lecturer almost always tries to work in new articles, papers, or just news. Our last class of 2nd year is endocrine & reproductive pathophys, & lifespan issues (peds+geriatrics). The lectures today were on penile payhophys.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 08:30 PM
3

No worries! I'm really excited the AAP backed down, one of our lecturers actually mentioned this today.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 08:01 PM
2

This is a great thing, and I agree with almost everything you've posted here, but every circumcision is not a botch job. That's the kind of hyperbole that needs to be shut down. I'll agree that when done for cosmetic/religious reasons that circumcision = MGM= child abuse (hell, I even think peds uros that do them should have their license & MD pulled) but when medical treatments for phimosis fail, surgery is the go to option and is a legitimate medical decision, not a botch job.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 07:39 PM
2

No problem, glad you found it helpful! That's a good mnemonic, ours is Always Party Till Monday for auscultation.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 06:59 PM
2

What, exactly, is peripheral metabolism? Metabolism in tissues other than liver or kidneys? Pretty much, though to be more specific it's metabolism (typically of a hormone) occurring in a tissue other than where it was synthesized/released. For example, thyroid hormone is usually secreted in T4 form (tyrosine + 4 Iodine), and gets carried through the body attatched to a protein called thyroid binding globulin. When T4 reaches a tissue where it's supposed to do stuff, it's converted by 5'-deiodin…
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:18 PM
3

There are superficial veins that run through the skin that's cut in MGM. When the tissue is cut, the veins get cut too, and either are cauterized shut, or clot off, or otherwise get sealed at the cut end (specifics depend on the type of procedure). (NSFW obviously - drawing of penis dissection) This is from my anatomy atlas, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 06:27 PM
2

Great post! I've been reviewing endocrine pathophys lately, and I wanted to add some detail to the above. Even XX-genotype babies/girls/women have some level of androgen and testosterone (secreted by the adrenal glands or pancreas, IIRC), just not as much as XY-genotype babies. The adrenal glands of both males and females secrete testosterone (about half of womens' androgens come from the adrenals). Some of that gets converted peripherally to dihydrotestosterone (DHT is a more much more potent f…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 05:45 PM
2

Yeah, that's true.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 03:15 PM
9

Sooooo she claims that male victims of DV are "imaginary victims" -- unlike her. How fucking disgusting is that? This is a new low even for feminists. "Imaginary victim" was the username of the commenter she was talking to (The top commenter). Not going to argue that her views are wrong, b/c they are, just wanted to point that out.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:56 PM
2

I'm assuming population growth rates.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 05:51 AM
1

Ok, more in depth response, as promised. So, JHopkins was involved in this area of surgery, dating back to the 60s, with a double mastectomy for a FtM patient. In the 70s they began a screening program to identify candidates for genital surgery. Given the time period and location, this was extremely controversial. The surgery, at that time, was pretty brutal, and to the opposition, and even just lay persons, seemed to be outright mutiliation. During that time, the evidence for the surgery was fa…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 10:05 PM
2

From what I recall, they were among the first to start doing the surgery, then quit in the 70s. That conclusion was based on several studies showing no significant benefit. At least one was poorly controlled (post op trans compared to gen pop only) & I believe the other two had solid methodology. My working theory for the disparity between those older results and the newer ones I linked is the dramatic improvement in surgical technique. I'll do some digging tomorrow and make a more in depth repl…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 03:58 AM
3

It's generally an escalation - just like with almost any surgical intervention, the standard is to exhaust less invasive options first. For example, if a person is experiencing gender identity disorder, the first line treatment is almost always therapy, to explore the issue and establish the person's goals for treatment. The ultimate goal of treatment is to minimize self harm risk by minimizing the dysphoria. If therapy alone isn't enough, then transitioning is the next step. Usually there's at …
/r/MensRights27/03/16 02:04 AM
6

It's actually a pretty interesting topic. I'm a 2nd year medical student, and we have a several lectures on this topic. Functional/anatomic differences have been found in the brains of trans individuals. It's not that they have a "female" brain in a "male" body, but rather that their brain is in between M/F, but closer to F (gross simplification, but that's the gist). There have been some interesting articles on maternal/fetal hormone signaling/supply during gestation that may explain it. First …
/r/MensRights27/03/16 12:25 AM
2

Real talk though, pain in your toes can be a big deal, and not because of gout. I mean, gout is more common in men, and can be extremely painful, but it's pretty easy to treat. The big deal is infection. Wounds on your feet are generally much slower to heal, and can get infected easily, and from there can easily spread into the bones of your foot. Osteomyelitis sucks hardcore. So whether its an ingrown toenail or just a cut, check that shit out and get it dealt with. Or at least slather it in ne…
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:14 PM
1

I only read the first sentence. You're an idiot. 1lb a week for losing 25 lbs would take you over SIX MONTHS. So... You're an idiot. I'm right, significant weight loss takes months, how are you seriously even arguing with me about something so basic? Wow...well thanks for the name calling, but I'm still right, and you're still....not. 1lb/wk = 4lb/month = 24lbs @ 6 months, which is inside the std error of most home scales, and also ignores the first few weeks of much more rapid weight loss. And …
/r/MensRights17/03/16 02:50 PM
1

heh, 2nd time in as many days I've seen your posts with glaring factual errors. Losing weight can take days? lol wtf I guess if you only need to lose a pound or you cut off your leg Rapid weight loss can happen in a few days, and there are tons of diet plans that aim for ~-1 lb/wk "Google women over 50" yes they EXIST, they are not commonly shown as sexual beings in the media Yes, they are? I mean, the user above you literally pointed out that google will return dozens of lists. So just because …
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:12 AM
1

I'm conflicted about the CDC study, honestly. I feel that the lifetime victimization %'s are bunk, especially for comparing male/female victimization. People tend to normalize abuse over time, especially male victims with female perpetrators. The one study I can recall off the top of my head showed men were ~4 times more likely to report what happened to them as abuse/assault after I think 5 years? That said, the 12 month data doesn't strike me as outrageous. Something like ~1.7% of both the mal…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 07:49 AM
4

I honestly don't see this going anywhere. The bill calls for surgical castration. Even if it's stipulated as a condition of release, there's no earthly way a prisoner can realistically consent to that - it'd be like demanding they donate a kidney before being released (consent under duress !=consent). So the operation would be performed without patient consent, or the person stays in prison past their given sentence. The second is a pretty easy to win appeal to federal court, IMO. As for the fir…
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:04 PM
2

Are you sure? B/c my litmus test came back extremely acidic - tasting pretty sour/salty.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 10:21 PM
5

Re: Politicians - women are, and have been for a long time, a majority of the electorate (ie, they have more influence in selecting representatives). Female candidates aren't less likely to win when they run. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make wrt the military, since the military has very little domestic power. Overall, I would agree with you that men do have institutional power, but then again so do women. Trying to redefine everything in terms of oppression and institutional power d…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:27 PM
2

4th year neuro resident....Ouch. She was in the last year of her program, probably only a few months from taking her boards and being a full attending neurologist. Tough call for the program on whether to dump her this close to graduation or not. There's no doubt she was grossly unprofessional, but I doubt she'll lose her license. I'm torn on if she deserves to graduate from her program.... Edit: Just found out she's an IMG....yeah, she's boned.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:43 PM
2

Professional medical? Was she a med student? Sorry if it's in the video - cant watch atm
/r/MensRights22/01/16 05:00 AM
1

Thanks for the link, very interesting read. I can't believe I'd never heard of this case before, I guess it's b/c I've got 0 interest in Pedi, but still. At least the misinformation about apnea monitors isn't being actively spread in the medical community anymore...
/r/MensRights15/01/16 10:44 AM
6

Perhaps these boys are a particularly vulnerable population, and medical and educational professionals need to be aware if they are at heightened risk. ER docs & pediatricians are already pretty quick to suspect abuse, this is from a decently popular blog for trauma docs, & gets posted on FOAMED pretty regularly. Sad, but true.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:28 AM
2

These PSAs are by default insulting to men, because they are making the statement that men need to be taught not to rape. This is in addition to the blatant sexism in ignoring women, who perpetrate ~45% of non consensual sex. but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that there's evidence suggesting rape prevention education results in less rape Is there? Because I don't see any. Research would have to take into account that all violent crime has been decreasing for a while now, and I …
/r/MensRights08/01/16 01:12 AM
3

Exactly. They're essentially saying, "Hey, we like this organization you've built, so we're just gonna take over now. Kthxbai"
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:04 AM
0

Is there supposed to be a /s in there somewhere? Hopefully...
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:56 PM
1

According to this forum thread, both Eagle Scouts & Gold Award girl scouts can join at the same rank. This is the source referenced in that post.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:52 PM
2

Firstly, almost none of the commenters identified themselves by gender, so you don't have any basis for claiming it's something men think, much less that only men think that. Secondly, "responsibility for your safety is on you" is a non-controversial statement of fact. Unless the person in question is a child, a ward of the state, or a ward of someone else, they are ultimately responsible for their own safety.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:05 PM
2

Your first study is absolute garbage. They excluded from the analytical sample non-perpetrators with missing information, but didn't do the same for perpetrators. That's gonna skew your numbers. Further, 13% of the 'perpetrator' group used 'verbal coercion', which is ridiculous and should under no circumstances be considered rape or sexual assault. (Note - threatening harm to the person or someone close to them is considered in this study to be forcible coercion). Their 'hostility towards women'…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 10:33 PM
1

It's an interesting question. Generally with amputations, sooner is better for re-attachment or transplantation. Given how much time has passed I'm not sure how effective it would be; it'd depend on how the wound was treated. These will for sure be interesting cases - appendage transplants in general are fascinating.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:11 AM
1

They're probably not (and won't) because they aren't facts. Rape victimization is about 50/50 M/F, excluding prison rape. Perpetrators are 55/45 M/F, again excluding prison rape. I haven't seen very many studies on prison rape, but the last article i read had it at ~200K/year, which put victimization at ~53/47 M/F. I can't say much wrt perpetartion, since a lot of prison rape is serial, and the article I read didn't have data on that. Even if we assume parity with victimization though, that puts…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 11:10 PM
1

I'm not sure you understand what injustice means.... If you're saying that most female rape victims were assaulted by a male, that may be true, but it's not a sign of injustice, considering that most male rape victims were assaulted by a female, and there are generally more men raped annually than women...That's a rape problem, not a gender problem. As for murder, I'm not really sure how women being a tiny minority of all victims of violence, much less murder, is a sign of injustice.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 06:57 PM
0

Peripheral nervous system axons do regenerate...The problem with circumcision is that the sensory structures are cut before they finish developing, so there's no potential for regeneration.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:52 PM
1

Most likely, the hostages family is either also held &/or threatened with death if they don't comply.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:54 AM
1

Thanks! Not sure about the downvote brigade, but I show your comments @ +5 & +2, respectively. I think we might actually agree with each other, and have been talking past each other. To clarify: Someone above made the claim that college women are victimized at a lower rate than the general population. I posted that report to show that among college aged women (18-24), rates of sexual assault are indeed higher for non-students than students. From the report (table 1), we have 2.1 per 1000 for non…
/r/MensRights20/11/15 11:48 PM
1

What page in the report are you drawing that from? The table on pg 10 shows that the rate of rape/sexual assault for nonstudents is significantly higher in the 18-21 age range, and about even (.9 ratio, in favor of students) for the 22-24 age range. I do agree that sexual assault rates (and crime rates in general) are in decline and have been for a long time.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 05:13 PM
11

Not the person you're responding to, but Here (PDF download) is the data from the BJS. From the first page, the rate of sexual assaults for female students 18-24 was ~20%, while the rate for nonstudent females in the same age range was ~32%. Of course, this is using a ridiculously broad definition of sexual assault, but even with a reasonable definition, I doubt the proportion shifts in the other direction.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 07:49 AM
2

Excellent points, but if you're going to present them to anyone outside this sub, you'll want sources. This site is a fantastic resource for that. Also, you should delete the bit about selective service and voting rights, since that one's false. Not registering for SS doesn't impact voting rights. If you're prosecuted (extremely unlikely) and convicted, then you could be disenfranchised as a result of being a felon, but that's probably not going to happen. Federal aid & a lot of state programs (…
/r/MensRights25/10/15 07:05 AM
4

Even just looking at that out of context quote, I don't see how it fits your claim. If anything, the bit where he states erection = automatic consent is closer to rape apology.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 06:53 PM
1

I don't think either one of them should have name suppression. Arrest records, and especially court records are public information. Secret trials are a very, very bad thing. It really sucks that an accusation can torpedo your future, but that's not enough to outweigh the danger of secret trials.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 12:33 AM
1

If your cell phone carrier is part of WEA, then yes, the president can send emergency alerts to your phone. More here Can consumers block WEAs? Partially. Participating wireless carriers may offer subscribers with WEA-capable handsets the ability to block alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life and/or AMBER Alerts; however, consumers cannot block emergency alerts issued by the President.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 08:02 PM
4

Really? Which characters? Do you have any links to news articles about any of that? I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything like that, just that I had no idea about any of that and I'd be really interested in reading about it. (I tend to be really out of the loop wrt stuff like that)
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:07 PM
3

That's completely nonsensical. The prostate is an gland that's nigh essential for sexual and urinary function. Especially if it's lost as a result of an injury, there's a hi likelihood of losing proper sexual & urinary function. Breasts are almost completely auxiliary. The cosmetic effects of even a radical mastectomy can be fairly simply be remedied with plastic surgery. Worst case, you lose some pectoralis muscle & lymph nodes. Maybe some loss of strength & swelling in the arms/above the neck.…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 05:26 AM
1

Minor correction: 550/31,000,000 = 0.0000177. If you want that as a percentage, you have to multiply by 100, which gives 0.00177, or ~0.002%. Comes out to about 2 in 100K, or ~1 in 50K people. Also, something interesting to consider: One of the heavily biased (pro-circ) articles I read a few months ago cited circumcision as reducing transmission risk by 70%. But you know what cuts it by over 90%? Condom use (even imperfect use). So, a permanently disfiguring surgical procedure is only 20% more e…
/r/MensRights01/10/15 06:48 PM
0

Do you have a source for that? I couldn't find one, esp. since cancer incidence by sexual orientation isn't really tracked. Based on some other data, and a few assumptions, I get the following: 151.8 million males in the US LGBTQ self-identification @ 1-7%, from a veriety of sources referenced here. I went with 5% for ease of math So, we then have: 144.21mill heterosexual men 7.59m non-heterosexual men From the American Cancer Society's 2015 estimates for males: Oropharyngeal: 32 670 Anal: 2 640…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 08:16 AM
1

While on the one hand I agree with the general sentiment of male disposability, and we're clearly on the losing end of gender-specific healthcare funding, that isn't really what's going on here. The study linked was conducted in 2004, several years before the HPV = male throat cancer news hit the public, much less the public health research sector. For reference, Michael Douglas (the media poster boy for the entire oropharyngeal cancer from HPV thing) was diagnosed in 2010. At the time of the st…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 07:47 AM
2

Men make up for than half of new cancer cases related to HPV. About 38%, actually, if we're assuming that all the new cases are the result of HPV infection.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 07:40 AM
2

I replied to the poster below you also, just wanted to point out that the study you linked only looked @ cost per QUALY of females. Any gains by/for men were not analyzed.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:20 PM
10

It's not cost, its the cost per quality adjusted life year. 1 QUALY = +1 years of perfect health (poor health would be some weighted at some fraction of 1). The problem is, the study quoted above by /u/tiqr says nothing about QUALY gains or costs for men. The study evaluated the cost effictoveness of vaccinating females only vs males & females, but only in terms of the cost per QUALY gained by women. From the study: vaccine for 12-year-old girls would reduce cohort cervical cancer cases by 61.8%…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:17 PM
1

That is absolutely how privacy works. Especially in this context. And it's moronic to compare public transport to a vital service like public transportation. You don't have to get a vasectomy, it's totally elective. The doctor can never be obliged to perform one on you. You aren't entitled to his labor. Urology is not a public service. If you don't like the conditions they set, you can go somewhere else. It is a 100% voluntary release of information. The doctor cannot call your wife up out of th…
/r/MensRights06/09/15 02:20 AM
2

Not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. It is unconstitutional for you to be incarcerated because you are unable to pay. This is from the NJ supreme court, but the case law brought up theirin is federal/consitutional law. Relevant bits below: In a comprehensive opinion, Judge Feinberg determined “that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause requires the appointment of counsel for an indigent child support obligor who faces incarceration.” Judge Feinberg rested her decision primarily on La…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 03:52 PM
1

Not OP, but you are absolutely wrong. The patients are not (and cannot) be forced to disclose their information. If they want the procedure, which is 100% elective, the patient has to decide to involve their spouse. It would be a HIPAA violation if the doctor, against the will of the patient involved the spouse and asked for their consent, but that isn't what is happening here. As an aside, it's actually not even that uncommon to tell patients they need to bring in another adult. There are surge…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 03:14 PM
2

It's not illegal. Sterilization is a voluntary procedure, and the doctor is free to set the conditions under which they'll perform it. They can't forcibly release your HPI, you have to do so voluntarily.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 03:08 PM
1

It actually can't. A vasectomy is an elective procedure, and the urologist cannot be compelled to perform it, they have to voluntarily take your case. If they make it a requirement for you to get consent from your wife, it's a voluntary release of HPI on your part. If the doctor called your wife up out of the blue and started talking about your vasectomy, then it'd be a HIPAA violation, but short of that, no dice. Source: 2nd year med student, we've discussed this exact topic in our curriculum. …
/r/MensRights05/09/15 03:02 PM
2

Even if we accept that institutional/structural sexism is the only kind, and even if we accept the predj. + power line of reasoning, their argument doesn't hold. When a male victim of IPV is arrested, it's a result of institutional prejudice against males, plus the power of the state. There are other examples that fit the metric, but that's the first one I thought of. The counter argument would be that males are the gender in power, but that's really just an empty statement. Just because many of…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 02:02 PM
8

Also, the prostitutes in the article whose assets were seized were men. This is in addition to decriminalizing sex work being a topic that falls into the overlap between the MRM & Anti-feminist movements, though that's just my opinion.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 12:07 PM
4

Exactly. It sucks because I strongly doubt the statues will ever get changed ("<political opponent name> voted for decriminalizing child molestation!"), even though those statues criminalize perfectly normal social behavior.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:57 PM
5

Yes and no. The whole "using a computer" aspect was added in at a time when doing something on a computer represented an extra level of difficulty. You had to have put in extra time/effort into whatever act, so you needed a harsher punishment. It doesn't really fit in with the daily life of most people now though, when a huge chunk of activity involves a computer.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:20 PM
2

It requires more than just living together, in Tx you have to have to: Live together agree to be married Present yourselves to the world as husband and wife When you introduce people to your SO, if you refer to them as "my girlfriend, <name>", you're fine. Also, if you make it known that you don't wish to be married, you're also fine. All three requirements have to be met for it to count as a common-law marriage. And each of these elements has to be proven; and the burden of proof is on the pers…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:54 AM
2

ughhhh that's weird. They start with data that's just slightly off, and then politicize and twist it to fit their weird narrative, 180 degrees from reality. Makes my head hurt. This was the best part: if 99% of what it means to be human is microbiome-based, and if the mother contributes most, if not all, of the original starting material, Then how did we end up with a patriarchy?
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:42 PM
5

1) Gigantic wall of text, please consider better formatting. 2) For someone who subscribes to an ideology that condemns gender-based condescension, you sure managed to pack a bunch of it into your wall of text. 3) Was there an argument in there anywhere, or just ranting at strawmen? 4) If you're going to make ridiculous claims, at least attempt to provide a source (ie, actually link to the complete study). Pretty much every 'study' you cite is blatantly false. To elaborate: Rape is not a gendere…
/r/MensRights09/08/15 12:46 PM
1

Can confirm, TX cheap as hell. Paying 860 for ~1350 sq feet.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 10:34 PM
1

If you don't want it done, absolutely don't do it, and nobody is going to force you. However, you should know that if you do actually have cryptorchidism, as opposed to agenesis of a testis, your testicular cancer risk is about 3 times higher. This article has a decent discussion. Here is the study discussed if you want to look at the results/methods yourself. Bottom line, if there is a 2nd testis hiding in there somewhere (and yes, they can be damned hard to find, trust me), it is a significant…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:59 AM
3

:D Thanks!
/r/MensRights28/07/15 09:13 PM
8

Done. Will this pass inspection?
/r/MensRights28/07/15 08:27 PM
7

wow....somehow I made it on there, even though I hardly ever post.... Apparently a result of this post. I suppose I deserve it, considering I reacted to OC's request for sources. Where do I pick up my Patriarchal OppressorTM card?
/r/MensRights28/07/15 08:13 PM
2

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Agreed on all counts.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 11:01 PM
1

the claim has been made, practically ad nauseum, that cops have been bullying rape victims into dropping their accusations, and I can see false recantations being a result of that. Good point. I'd like to see more studies on false accusations, with an emphasis on recantations and the interview process, but I doubt those'll be popping up anytime soon. Those are not trivial issues. Agreed. In the absence of data that controls for the reporting confounding, all I can do is encourage people to take …
/r/MensRights27/07/15 05:35 AM
2

Replying from mobile - sorry for formatting if this comes out weird. Kanin Study: Definitely valid criticism, especially regarding sample size. With regard to their methods, I'd point out that (if I'm recalling correctly) that for an accusation to be counted as false, the accused had to recant. Agreed that more studies are needed for firm conclusions. DV: The other papers I've read generally support these conclusions, including that women are more often seriously injured, though I'd suppose that…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 03:44 AM
2

Not OP, but I have at least one link to the sources mentioned. Regarding false accusations, the 41% comes from this (Warning: PDF download link) study by Kanin. Also, for the last point (cheaper insurance, memberships, ect.) it's a fact that in the US men pay more for car insurance, I don't have any sources handy aside from my personal experience of paying more than my SO even though she's totalled at least one car. Google should be able to spit something useful out, but I've got to leave soon, …
/r/MensRights26/07/15 11:30 PM
3

They were actually pointing out how utterly brainless your position is. Grabbing a few comments from a sub with ~6K subscribers and then claiming that anyone and everyone who falls under the MGTOW umbrella is in mental lockstep with those cherry picked comments is beyond stupid. If you tried to do the reverse with the misandric drivel that gets posted by mainstream feminist sites all the time, and claiiim that then by default anyone who calls themselves a feminist is utterly and completely in ag…
/r/MensRights27/06/15 06:30 AM
5

I would add athletes to that list, also. Male sports league vs female, the pay isn't equal. There are legitimate arguments about the pay being related to the popularity/crowd draw of the men's sports vs women, but that also would apply to male v female fashion workers & porn actors/actresses.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 07:44 PM
3

Thank you for saying this. I fell often people will react against injustice and go full throttle the other way. We hear stupid things like 'all men are abusive' and turn around to say, 'nuh uh, all women are abusive. The truth of the matter is that abuse/violence/ect is perpetrated by a small minority of the population, and that women have just as much capacity to be shitty people as men do. "Most women are abusive . . .ect" is no more valid than "Most men are abusive . . .ect".
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:44 PM
2

His ex's lawyer returned the first 5K check and called the prenup "unenforacable" so it's being challenged in court. That's why he's asking to court to uphold it, because it has been challenged. You can technically challenge basically any contract, but prenups are thrown out/dissolved more often than other contracts by the courts.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:41 PM
1

So saying someone is a cancer to society is okay as well? I don't recall saying that. It's certainly not discriminatory, and whether or not it's hateful, I feel we'll never agree on. I interpret it as a figurative description of the effect that obese people have on our healthcare and benefits systems, which is somewhat of an apt metaphor if you've studied cancer. I personally view it in the same vein as saying that drug dealers are a cancer on society. So calling someone a "gluttonous lazy blob"…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 07:26 PM
1

I don't really see how anything there could possibly be actionable discrimination. If you want to ignore arguments against your position, that's your echo-chamber prerogative. We seem to be disagreeing on what constitutes hate. You seem to believe that criticism and any negative judgement or appellation is automatically hate. I don't, thus, the crux of the problem. it's easily possible to disparage fat people for their choices and the consequences they cause for themselves and others without it …
/r/MensRights29/05/15 04:37 PM
2

See my response to you further down this thread. I think you may have posted this as I was typing it up. I'll repeat the highlights. I'll give you the point that parents make the food decisions for their children, though not all the way to 18. Even as a teenager, you can make some decisions for yourself. Even then, even if we assume that 16 and 17 year old people are 100% incapable of exercising even the tiniest amount of autonomy, that only gives them an excuse until they turn 18. After that, t…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 04:02 PM
1

The problem is that I don't see anything there that's hateful. I don't think that word means what you think it does. You're supported shedding responsibility and denying reality, two things that do not go over well in this sub. It's not helping matters that you're conflating discrimination against fat people with that against gays and blacks. That's not a valid comparison, since nobody makes choices that result in them being black or gay. In fact, the angriest commenter you linked seems to be an…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 03:59 PM
1

That one thread. Totally more hate than all of reddit combined, including /r/fatpeoplehate. I'd suggest you take your own advice.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 03:42 PM
3

I don't think I've ever met a smoker who chose to have emphysema either. They still made the choices that got them there. Just like people who are fat made the choices that ended up with them being fat.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 03:41 PM
1

The entire legal system is biased against men, not just in family law, though that may be one of the most visible. Your argument that anger at this bias is misdirected and should be pointed at the social status quo is irrelevant. When the agents of the law enforcement and legal systems in our society harbor these biases, they will inevitably go along with them in the discharge of their duties. That makes the issue a legal/judicial issue as well as a social one. When a judge orders a man be jaile…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:09 PM
1

This makes no sense. Are they mixing up sex and gender again? Sex is completely biologically determined, and so it 100% appropriate to designate at birth. I could make see leaving it blanked or marked differently for the tiny fraction that are born sexually ambiguous, but that's about it. Gender identity is different, and really has no place on a birth certificate, since it's not determinable at birth. There is a biological aspect to gender identity, as we know that male and female brains are di…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:22 PM
2

Agreed, that's messed up. He could probably file something to be acknowledged as the father.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 10:01 PM
29

I don't really see the problem. He has no right to be in the room. Delivery is a medical procedure, and he doesn't have the right to intrude into her private medical care. He wouldn't have the right to be in the room if she was getting a pelvic exam or even just a regular check up. I get the idea of privileging motherhood over fatherhood, and that's absolutely a thing, but it doesn't apply here.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 07:33 PM
5

Sure, nobody has ever been appointed as a U.S. Senator. Totally. Definitely not as recently as last year. Nope.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:11 PM
2

So proud to be under the TTU umbrella, even if I'm under a different dean (TTU HSC is mostly autonomous) /s
/r/MensRights03/05/15 07:10 AM
2

It's de facto debtors prison, yes. It's technically unconstitutional to imprison someone for being unable to pay, and the person is entitled to a hearing to determine whether they are able to pay. Sadly, almost all jurisdictions blatantly ignore this and keep on trucking. And since even the most corrupt judges are (almost always) totally insulated from any consequences (barring re-election, but voters don't really give a shit about this), they have no incentive to follow the law.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:39 PM
13

In such a frenzy that they misspelled "participant" on the 3rd poster, then had to correct it with a sharpie. Sounds about right.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:26 PM
1

Not sure why some enterprising woman doesn't just stand outside with a sign saying she'll go in and make your purchase @ 75%, you pay her 80%. Men get a 20% discount, she makes 5%, and we get to enjoy a real-life example of how ridiculous the wage gap is.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 07:45 AM
1

I would argue that the same applies since even formal sciences have underlying assumptions to their statements/conclusions and will revise the acceptance/rejection of statements/conclusions based on new information. The statements/conclusions also can also have parameters within which they're valid/useful, though in some disciplines this gets a little wonky. I used the example of natural sciences because I felt that would be the best example to demonstrate that in considering something scientifi…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 07:41 AM
3

That's....huh. Interesting. It's inconsistent, but it just sounds weird the other way, too much strain on man/men, makes it sound like you're actually just saying man/men with a nonspecific noise at the start. Maybe that's why? WOH MAN & WOH MEN....I've been repeating that to myself for about a minute now, thanks for that ;P
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:36 AM
0

Huh. Tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been ranting all through this thread. I pretty much agree with you; the equipment you get is biologically determined, but the way you use it is driven mostly by socialization.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:28 AM
1

If women were perceived as equals, they would be permitted to engage in war as men did. Historically, even children were allowed to fight, boys who had not yet reached puberty were given tasks on the battlefield. To say that is was because of a man's strength over a woman hold little clout when boys were allowed to participate. The historical origin is more about biology than equality politics. In small scale tribal warfare, even boys might fight. However, there would almost always be some males…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:17 AM
0

Pretty sure you guys are talking about two different things. Your voice is biologically determined. You can alter it consciously, but that doesn't change the base biological difference between the male and female layrnx. However, there are also socialized speech patterns that I believe you're referring to, learning to talk, not just with the sound of the opposite gender, but with the language/phrasing. These are two very different things, and you're arguing at right angles to one another.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:07 AM
1

If there were a new law passed that required all people whose name starts with B to submit a DNA sample to a database, do people with names that start with A or C-Z lose the right to be compelled to sumbit their DNA? That's not how rights work, and it's not how selective service or the draft work. If a woman wants to join the military to act in service to her country, she is free to do so, at any time. Not being forced into the draft is not relevant. Clearly, no one is saying that a particular g…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:50 AM
1

Science never proves or disproves anything. Something is either accepted or rejected based on the available data/evidence. Proof is absolute. As there is no way to completely eliminate uncertainty, or ensure that all underlying assumptions are valid for 100% of the time period in question, that condition cannot be met. Again, scientific principles are accepted or rejected based on the evidence available. Any theory or law could be shown to be absurdly false tomorrow with new data. Falsifiability…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:40 AM
2

Nobody is "allowed" to join the draft, it's not a right, you are forced by law under threat of arrest/crippling financial penalties to do so. Women are still completely able to volunteer for military service. Next I'll just mention the reproductive rights men just don't have to worry about, things regarding childbirth and female fertility. The corrected version should read: "reproductive rights that men don't have." (men have no reproductive rights) Also, since every child has a father, I'd make…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:43 AM
1

10 print "I consent"; 20 goto 10 Presto, problem solved.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:05 AM
1

Kansas common law marriage. Relevant part: A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required. Emphasis mine. It's essentially the same across the US.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 08:03 PM
7

In every instance that I'm aware of, you have to present yourselves to the world as married. Ie, joint tax filing, calling each other husband/wife/spouse, ect. Just living together (no matter how long) isn't enough. Not sure how that applies to supporting any previous children, though.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:38 AM
1

Yeah, pretty much. In the US at least we still have a shortage of physicians, especially in rural areas, so until that gets resolved some people are going to end up either not getting their way, or having to settle for a chaperon.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:37 PM
1

remove any possibility that anyone for any reason can request a same gender doctor or nurse. That's probably not going to happen, though. Just because a male doctor is restricted on seeing female patients does not make him less able, by the way I'm not saying he's less capable of being a doctor, but he is less able to earn the hospital money if he can only examine male patients. I'd agree that the student should have to fulfill the requirements of the curriculum, because she knew it was a thing …
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:14 AM
1

Is it really that prevalent, that all women are refusing male doctors? If that's true, it'd be even worse than half, considering that women tend to use healthcare more. Even if it is, I'm not sure what can be done outside pressing for social change. I doubt that any kind of legal reform is going to get through to remove the choice to request a same-sex examiner. And it would basically be another quota system if we forced hospitals to employ less-capable employees (doctors who can't examine a sig…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 05:50 AM
1

Wow.....and this is why I'm glad I know how to run a DNA test by myself.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:18 PM
6

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, it is vitally important that med students understand what it's like to be a patient who's being examined. Also, they were aware of this requirement at enrollment, and chose to stay in the curriculum without requesting any kind of change from the start. At the same time, I don't feel comfortable forcing patients (in this case, also students) into an examination by someone they aren't comfortable with. This goes both ways, I've seen both men and women req…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:09 PM
2

Yeah, med students will generally perform just about any non-invasive exam on one another. Pretty much the only restrictions are urological/Gyn/rectal (basically, underwear area is off limits). And even that isn't absolute. I've done bladder ultrasounds (and been the subject of them) before. You don't have to examine other students, or be examined by them, but it's sort of an unstated expectation.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 05:03 PM
1

Watering down DNA tests? What do you mean? Quick search didn't turn up anything, link please?
/r/MensRights25/03/15 04:02 PM
9

Stop talking about shit don't know, you uneducated cretin. Think you forgot a "you" in there. Clearly your English is just as bad, so now we can assume you never went to a University in America, and therefore don't know shit about anything you've brought up! It's fun when your own bullshit gets turned around on you, isn't it? In any case: they tell you they'll do something about it, bring the guy in for some kind of moral audit, suspend him, expel him, at least kick him out of the Greek system. …
/r/MensRights21/03/15 11:10 PM
1

That's a pretty comprehensive and very interesting read, particularly Abbit V bernier (pg 566), which would apply to the entire area covered by that federal circuit! Thanks for linking that, I'll finish it up tomorrow.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 10:11 AM
2

Because the appellate court either doesn't have the authority or the guts to overturn the original ruling, which was in accordance with the law. That law sucks ass, but until it's changed or overturned by a higher court (state supreme court, for example) it remains in effect. The first appellate court to see a case can usually only consider errors in the application of the law, or other legal errors.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 09:13 AM
1

Some of them may be jury trials, but the right to a jury trial usually only applies to sentences greater than 6 months, as per [this] (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm) reference (the case is referred to as Bloom, last sentence of the first paragraph). The willfull aspect of intent usually has two elements to be satisfied: That the defendant was able/capable of complying, and that they did not. There are some affirmative defenses, such as a journalist …
/r/MensRights22/02/15 09:03 AM
1

From what I understand, the nonpayment is assumed to be willful. Since at that point it's still a civil matter, I'd assume the preponderance (51%) standard is used. The contempt charge becoming criminal hinges on continued non-payment. At that point, your inability to pay is an affirmative defense. The only proof the state has to provide is that A) the order was made, B) you were aware of this order & C) you didn't pay. Sadly, the 5th amendment defense will only hurt you here, as you can't use i…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 08:14 AM
1

In this case, if I'm reading it correctly, SCOTUS sets the bar for whether a contempt charge is criminal or civil: In a nutshell, the Supreme Court opined that a contempt is civil for federal constitutional purposes if the order of contempt ultimately entered [215 Cal.App.3d 145] allows the contemner to purge the contempt by performing an act completely within the contemner's control. In such circumstances the due process considerations discussed in People v. Roder, supra, 33 Cal.3d 491, are ina…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 06:50 AM
1

I'm not really sure, honestly. Can you link to the case? There's ample precedent that states that he can't be imprisoned because he can't pay. It flipping from criminal to civil is confusing the issue, if that was the case.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 05:02 AM
1

Again, not something I've done much research on, but I'll explain as best I can. The judge is the one who issues the charge, and is also the finder of fact. If he's raised the charge, he already has enough to find you guilty, so "charged" and "Guilty" occur at the same time. The trial only exists to determine the facts, which has already been done. Yes, it does in principle violate double jeopardy, but from my understanding this has been allowed/justified in order for the court system to functio…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:14 AM
1

Murder is wrong, but murder is also a legal definition. Theft, also has a legal definition. Murder and theft are not objectively wrong; there are moral frameworks that exist in the world which can justify these things, which are just as valid in their culture as your morality is in yours. Since there are varied interpretations of what is 'moral' we use laws as a universal framework to determine right and wrong. Not paying child support is wrong because the government says it is wrong. Not paying…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:02 AM
1

Contempt is weird, and I haven't done a ton of research into this, so take this with a shaker of salt. My understanding is that each incidence of contempt is a fully separate charge, occurring under new/unique conditions. Even if the contempt charges all relate to the same order. It's a violation of the double jeopardy principle, but I believe it would pass strict scrutiny, since courts being able to do their job (ie, have enforceable orders) is a compelling government interest, and I can't thin…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 02:52 AM
1

Williams V Illinois was the initial opinion, that held that indicency (being poor) could not be the cause for extending imprisonment beyond the maximum allowed by statute. Later, in Tate V short, the court referenced Williams and held that a court could not impose a financial penalty, and then convert it to jail time if the person were unable to pay. Another decision which references these earlier two is Bearden V. Georgia, which technically outlawed debtors prison: If a State determines a fine …
/r/MensRights22/02/15 02:41 AM
1

Divorce is not a crime. Was there supposed to be a point there? Well of course. Governments have a monopoly of force and do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they can get away with it. But it does not apply to CS because in a sense apart from whatever arbitrary thing a legislature/court system decides, getting divorced is not a crime. And who ever said divorce was a crime? There's a nice strawman, if ever I saw one. Again, the divorce is irrelevant. Divorce =/= a support order. Only whe…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 02:30 AM
1

A trespass established by the government itself. Your logic is circular. And how exactly is any other trespass requiring government intervention not something established by the government? If I tell you that action A has a stated consequence, then enact that consequence when you perform action A, is that circular? I find it somewhat troubling that you can't seem to decide if my argument is a "should be" or an "is" argument. On the one hand, you have explicitly stated that, "...the debt is a fab…
/r/MensRights22/02/15 01:45 AM
0

Not in the same way that child support is. They are levied in response to a break up. Is having a woman break up with you a punishable offense? exactly in the same way. They are all just words we made up and wrote down. In any case, the break up is not the reason for CS, but rather the cause. It is established in law that children have the right to support from their parents. In the event of a break up, if an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, then the court steps in, acting to uph…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 09:18 PM
0

TL;DR: CS =/= slavery, and if there was any strawmanning, it sure wasn't on my end. Forcing people to work against their will is slavery. It isn't really that hard to understand. That was more a response to the blatant misrepresentation of the point, but sure, ok, I'll run with it. Slavery/involuntary servitude are prohibited by the 13th amendment, but not in regards to involuntary labor as part of a criminal sentence. There have been rulings which support forcing prisoners to do basic maintenan…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 09:14 PM
0

See above post quoting Moss, Williams, & Tate for limitations of imputed income.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:34 PM
1

Firstly, I'm not sure how to regard deciding to not work...how are you going to support yourself? If you're working a job, then are served with a court order to pay, then quit, it's pretty clear that you quit in order to defy the court, which is contempt. Edit: You have something of a point in regards to not being free to quit your job at any time, but this is often the case anyway, considering people almost always have other obligations. You can't claim that working to provide for your own food…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:30 PM
-2

So? All laws/principles and pretty much every non-physical thing in our lives are fabrications manufactured out of thin air. Until some form of legal parental surrender is available, people have a legal obligation to support their children.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:23 PM
2

Agreed. Though the indentured/involuntary servitude aspect doesn't apply here. And debtors prison was eliminated by a combination of federal law, state law, and finally, a SCOTUS ruling in 1983 (Bearden V. Georgia). The contempt judgement does violate Williams V. Illinois & Tate V. Short, and is unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:20 PM
-1

unless you think that slavery is OK, of course what is this, I don't even . . . Anyway, Court orders are not entered only in criminal law. The support order is a court order. Civil court findings are also court orders, even though no crime has been committed. Custody orders are court orders, ect. ect. Yes, the law is wrong, in many cases. In general, monetary judgements are not ones of them. Specific instances in which courts ignore the law regarding inability to pay, in order to enforce support…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 07:59 PM
2

The problem is not the law, but the application of the law. Legally, if you can only find a job paying 50K/year, then you have the right to demand a hearing demonstrating your inability to pay. If the finding of the hearing supports your claim, then you cannot be threatened with jail or other penalties for not paying (I haven't found anything either way about interest accrual while you can't pay, though). The problem in the application is that many state courts, and all family courts that I am a…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 07:48 PM
-1

Refusing to comply with a court order = contempt finding = criminal act. Constitutional protections against slavery/involuntary servitude do not apply when the labor is part of a criminal sentence. It's in the text of the amendment. There is ample supreme court jurisprudence which establishes that it is unconstitutional to jail people for inability to make court-ordered payments, however many states, and every family court system of which I am aware, ignores this. Ignoring inability to pay is un…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 07:41 PM
-1

Way to misrepresent the argument. You stated originally: The court order itself is unconstitutional. followed by: Forcing me to labor for the benefit of another is a violation of the 13th Amendment. My response was that the order is not unconstitutional, because it is an order for you to make x payment. Just like every other court-ordered payment is not unconstitutional, because it is simply an order to pay X amount. There is no constitutional principle or SCOTUS ruling which finds a payment ord…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 07:35 PM
-1

No, it isn't. The text of the 13th amendment (emphasis mine): Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. A support order in and of itself is not an order of forced labor. It is an order stating that you must provide X amount towards th…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 06:48 PM
0

The order itself is not unconstitutional. Often, these payment orders are maintained even after a person has demonstrated inability to pay, in which case the contempt charge and any additional fees, fines, or jail time are illegal. The original order of support is not in conflict with any constitutional principle.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 05:01 PM
3

The nerves can be regenerated. The stem cell lines they use, in combination with the extracellular matrix & surrounding tissue, are capable of fully regenerating the structure. The main complication will be attaching the graft in such a way as to allow the stem cells the right contact with the nervous tissues still present in the penis.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:22 AM
-2

Properly (n/2) + 7. It's a range, from youngest acceptable to oldest acceptable. That's the way I've always heard it, at least. Edit: Fudged my math, always sanity check any math posted before noon: n is your age for the younger bound, and your youngest parent's age for the upper. So if I'm 23 and my mother is 48 and my father is 53, the range becomes (23/2)+7 = 18.5 to (48/2) +7 = 31, an effective age range of 12.5 years. Another way I've heard to get the upper bound is your age +16, to elimina…
/r/MensRights04/02/15 11:47 AM
1

See above: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2uepv5/exfeminists_of_the_mrm_what_was_the_straw_that/co9kam2
/r/MensRights03/02/15 05:44 AM
2

See, the problem here is that rape is a construct, partly of society, but mostly of law. For something to be enshrined in law as a criminal act, it has to have clear, external, observable & verifiable factors. Since almost every crime has as part of it's definition intent to commit the act in question, the person in question must be able to readily determine or have knowledge of the factors. It's both pointless and a travesty of justice to criminalize things that are internal, or unclear to an i…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 05:41 AM
1

I always say BGLT, alphabetical order FTW
/r/MensRights03/02/15 05:13 AM
2

I'm just not buying that many people in the RP or PUA community would look @ marriage, especially in the US as something that's for them
/r/MensRights02/02/15 11:00 PM
1

Her position is that: 1) women make less than men for the same work & 2) that this is entirely or mostly due to sexism. The reaility is that men as a group do earn more than women as a group. When you look at the total averages, this can be painted as sexist. However, when you actually look at who does which jobs and for how much, you see that men almost always work longer hours, and that the most difficult, dangerous, and often, well-paid work is done by men. essentially, men tend to go into hi…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 07:01 PM
2

If you skimmed through TRP and somehow got the idea they were out hunting for LTR and marriage material, that kind of explains some things....
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:35 PM
2

Newsflash: Everyone is permanently deleted from the gene pool when they die, no matter how many children you've cranked out. Even the crudest lay explanation of embryo formation has half your potential genetic product out the door. Even then, dominant/recessive dynamics make a lot of the rest a crap shoot. So even if you do reproduce, there's not necessarily a ton of "you" in the next generation. All this ignores the fact your kid(s) could just get sick and die (ending your genetic line as surel…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:31 PM
2

Rough chart I threw together in excel, I'd spruce it up more, but my study break was only supposed to be 5 mins >> link: http://imgur.com/mvPWzWy edit: changed to columns http://imgur.com/jchShPl
/r/MensRights31/01/15 06:41 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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