TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TommyFoolery Archive

View 0 posts and 28 comments by TommyFoolery 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)
3

It was a 2-month STEM experiment back in 2015 You keep posting this over and over again but keep leaving out the part where the gender aspect was not part of the grant, that she kept that part to herself when she applied for it.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 08:12 PM
1

Pirates. Best ice breaker ever.
/r/seduction20/06/13 07:30 PM
2

I completely agree that it should wait until the child is old enough. I'm just saying that the lack of adoption should not be used as proof of the negative. In this case, at least.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:50 PM
-3

Not trying to blow you off, I have just explained that multiple times already in this thread. As for the AIDS, it's for the reason you just stated. They are not comparable. The same justification for male circumcision is not enough of a justification for female circumcision.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:46 PM
1

Just remember that the next time the SRS brigade comes in here and everyone starts dismissing them immediately.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:44 PM
0

My point was that in women, the clitoris can often be their only source of orgasm, so any damage to it would have a much higher impact on sexual health. That said, the article says something interesting. That the women considered their sex life as "normal" until the came to the west. But wouldn't "inhibited" sex be considered "normal" there? The part that made me respond the way I did however was Here I want to discuss the implications of unfounded allegations of deprived sexual abilities used i…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:43 PM
1

I get that, but the only way to solve the problem" for future infant boys, is to convince their parents. If it were up to the infants to decide, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But it's not. So you can separate the two all you want, as long as you're ok whistling in the wind on the internet and not actually accomplishing anything.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:39 PM
-1

Also, if AIDS really was the reason to support male circumcision, then why support it in the west as well? You answered your own question. And as for the original point I made, you just reinforced it If someone could show some health benefit they'd still say FGM is abhorrent. You're right. But if the two were the same, the same argument could be used for male circumcision, but it can't because they aren't.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:35 AM
-3

You can either use the arguments in that link to prove my opinion wrong, or to back up yours. But not both. Because all of the rebuttals in that article are the same things said on here about male circumcision that is immediately dismissed as "no excuse", apologist rationalization and dissonance. I get the feeling we are both on the same side. I am of the opinion that it should be legal, but only on children after they reach the age of puberty and are old enough to consent for themselves. I just…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:24 AM
-5

While I agree that along with both existing on a spectrum, they also share many other similarities, I don't agree that makes them equal. Especially since Type 1 female circumcision alone is enough to completely destroy the ability to orgasm all together. Not to mention there are no studies (that I am aware of) that prove female circumcisions have any health benefits.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:01 AM
0

I disagree that the two arguments are mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:54 AM
4

I don't think this is alienating our core demographic. As society functions now, that demographic is your target. Considering part of the offense is that babies can't make this decision for themselves. Which leaves their parents. I honestly believe you will have a much better conversion rate in parents' decisions using honey instead of vinegar. If you say "It's really not necessary, has limited advantages that very likely don't outweigh the disadvantages" people will be more willing to take your…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:47 AM
1

I'm just saying that making up statistics about how men refuse to have surgery on their penis isn't a valid rebuttal to the actual research that's been done. Many men who don't want to ever have children would still rather sacrifice sexual pleasure by using a condom instead of getting a vasectomy just because the thought of surgery on their junk freaks them out. It doesn't mean vasectomies are inherently wrong. It just means guys don't like the idea of having sharp objects near their genitals.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:25 AM
3

Hi. I'm Tom and I'm a circumcisee. I'm not offended or insulted by the discussion. I think it should be discussed. Neither side can claim to be right, without thorough and objective discussion. I do get offended by being labeled though. And I find it kind of silly to compare male circumcision to female circumcision. While the concept is similar the outcome and effects are much more dramatic for females. Not to belittle the topic, I just wish it would be more of a level headed discussion than I t…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:00 AM
4

Not to mention any real study would still most likely be heavily outweighed by the vast number of legitimate rapes that aren't reported. *I'm sure the term "legitimate rape" will get me on some SRS hit list, but whatever.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:53 AM
1

Which comment are you referring to? I think you're just trigger happy now.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:43 AM
3

While the assault numbers are drastically different, I do find it interesting that they are willing to include same sex marriages. Which implies woman are just as likely to be the perpetrators as the victim. Unless same sex marriage means something other than I was taught.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:43 AM
4

It's the same concept of rape victims relabelling themselves "rape survivors". Which I am completely ok with. It happened to them, it doesn't change the outcome or the importance. It's been brought up multiple times, but I truly do feel you are not doing your cause any justice by alienating the core demographic. Retarded is also linguistically correct, doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate those affected and their feelings on the subject.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:37 AM
-2

Apparently they promote it by downvoting all people who are ok with their penis.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:32 AM
1

My friend moved here (PNW of US) from Russia when he was 4-5. His mother purposely did not circumcise him because they are Jewish and left there to get away from the oppression. She had no idea it was so widely done here and people attach no religious value to it anymore.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:31 AM
0

Being ok with being circumcised is apparently faux pas here.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:27 AM
-2

Your arguing is even less relevant to the discussion, yet you still get to speak.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:26 AM
2

Same experience here. And as for the argument itself, I am all for bringing up awareness and getting people to actually discuss it. But people that are getting all militant about it just sound like SRS crazies and make people automatically dismiss their opinion before they have a chance to discuss it logically.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:25 AM
-3

YEAH! Everyone knows guys who don't want a scalpel anywhere near their junk, regardless of the reason, should carry more weight than science. Fuck science, it's just alien propaganda.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:21 AM
-9

Considering there are multiple scientific studies that say otherwise, you might want to lower your pitch fork just a tad.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:16 AM
0

We? Take you're own advice and don't talk for all of us.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:15 AM
2

Not to fan their flames, but to play the devil's advocate, they would point out that while women make up more than 50% of the population, they only make up a small percentage of elected officials. Which is true, and does carry some merit. However, I've never seen any studies but I would be interested to see; How many women try to run for election What percentage of women are elected (compared to percentage of males elected) What are the odds of a woman vs man running (which side wins more often)…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:14 AM
1

which I don't think is going to be addressed. FTFY
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:09 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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