TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

UpperLeftyOne Archive

View 0 posts and 124 comments by UpperLeftyOne on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Notice how they're comparing three different age groups in the study. The oldest age group never had any vaccine and were likely exposed to all the HPV types they were likely to ever have. Since they can't be vaccinated, that line will be flat or even increase since it takes 7 to 15 years to develop cancer. The young age groups is the one that is dropping radically. They were the group that received the most vaccines and their incidence of any lesions is dropping dramatically. This is what is ex…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 04:30 AM
1

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2016/3056407/ If you like graphs, here are some that really drive home the point about what the HPV vaccination program has done in Australia.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:35 PM
1

Australia is a weird place to use when talking about cervical cancer. The US started using Pap screening in 1953 and our cervical cancer rate dropped 60%+. Australia started a free Pap screen once every two years starting in 1991 and that dropped their cervical cancer rate by 50%. They then turned around and offered free HPV vaccine for every girl and woman 12-26 years old the first year it was on the market and every 12 year old girl in school every year after. Starting this year, because they …
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:25 PM
1

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cervical-young-women.htm Results Among women younger than 40 years of age— 78% of cervical cancer cases were diagnosed in women aged 30 to 39 years. 21% of cervical cancer cases were diagnosed in women aged 20 to 29 years. 1% of cervical cancer cases were diagnosed in women younger than age 20 years. Between 1999 and 2008, there were 3,063 cases of cervical cancer each year. On average, there were 14 cases per year among women aged 15 to 19, and …
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:12 PM
1

Some persistent HPV infections turn into warts and some turn into cancer so I split the difference at 5% each. Well you're wrong. If 5% of all HPV infections turned into cancer, it would be the leading cancer in the world. You're missing the most important part. "CIN0, CIN1, CIN2, CIN3, cancer in situ, invasive cancer" are all steps along the way. The point of Pap smears is to catch cancer before it develops. Cervical Intraepithelial dysplasia are all dysplasia. 1 in 6 women in America will be d…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 05:25 PM
6

Sure. You know what, I'm literally dying of cervical cancer because that vaccine wasn't available to me either. Your father, if his cancer was HPV related, probably had the infection before the vaccine would have been available to him anyway. The vaccine can't prevent an existing infection.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:32 AM
3

First, I have lots of things to argue in your paragraph. I disagree with your comment about 5% warts and 5% cancer! Prove it. Second, why use Australia? They have one of the best rates of HPV vaccination on the planet. So let's find out what that has meant for them: Programmatic implementation differs by country ( Supplementary Table 1 ). An illustration of a pragmatic approach quickly translating into impressive reductions in HPV infections and related diseases due to vaccine types is the ongoi…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:14 AM
8

HPV causes cancer and precancerous lesions 8 or 9 times more frequently in women than in men. In fact, even with the vaccine, Paps, LEEPs and cone biopsies, women still have more HPV cancers than do men 40,000 HPV related cancers in the US. 24,000 in women and 16,000 in men in spite of Paps, LEEPs/cone biopsies/hysterectomies. And the most common HPV related cancer in women has a poorer prognosis than the most common HPV related cancer in men. Women get HPV related oropharyngeal cancer too, by t…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 02:58 AM
3

Almost 90% of all sexually active Americans will get at least one HPV infection. 30% of all women will have at least one infection within a year after their first sexual encounter. In other words, there is a very good chance that you become infected the first time you have sex. I don't know about males, but it is 50% likely that females have their first sexual encounter prior to turning 20. The infection begins when the virus manages to insert itself into the basal cells of your epithelium. You …
/r/MensRights30/01/18 01:54 AM
6

Money. The vaccine was developed to prevent cervical cancer before anyone realized that HPV was also responsible for oropharyngeal cancer. But give this a little more thought before you start crying sexism... HPV causes cervical cancer and cervical cancer was a leading killer of women all over the world before 1953. That's when we started using Pap smears to detect the abnormal cell growth that can lead to cancer. (They didn't know HPV caused that abnormal growth back then). After the Pap came i…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 10:21 PM
2

"The chance of getting an HPV infection before the age of 18 is extremely low." Could you supply a source for that? "There are pap smears that have a near 100% detection rate for women and have seen evidence that a similar throat swab can be developed for men." The Pap smear is effective because there are no pain receptors on the uterine cervix. When you get a Pap, they are scraping off the top layer of tissue or using a stiff brush. It's not quite as stiff as your spark plug cleaner but it quit…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 09:52 PM
1

To be clear, the author of the article is not the one from the UK who couldn't get the vaccine. u/SecTeff, is it you who has HPV related cancer in the UK? This is the kind of thing I like to see at MensRights. There is no excuse for not offering this vaccine to men and I hope he or his estate does sue (whoever "he" is). For the rest of you, please read the article and please be aware that the recommendation for males is now age 26 - exactly the same for both sexes: https://www.merckvaccines.com/…
/r/MensRights23/12/17 02:31 AM
6

The claim about HPV isn't going to go anywhere. He did lie about being married though and I'd support a her in a claim if she could prove that he promised to marry her in order to get her to have sex with him even though he had no intention of marrying her. Take sex out of it and that's a straight up breach of contract between two people: I will give you this in exchange for that. One person follows through, the other lied.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:46 AM
1

I don't mean to be a dick but I can't tell what's going on without the legend. It looks like it could be useful though. Thanks for the effort - can you provide a link to it?
/r/MGTOW21/11/17 02:25 AM
1

You've made a statement regarding both herpes and HPV that condoms do not "fully protect you against viral STDs" (so far true). You go on to state that condoms DO work for women: "they are only effective for women". This is absolutely wrong! TLDR: Condoms don't fully protect you against viral STDs, for Herpes (HSV) or Human Papiloma Virus (HSV) they quite suck for a man, they are only effective for women. The study said that if a monogamous male/female couple used condoms 25% of the time, there …
/r/MGTOW21/11/17 02:02 AM
2

Studies have shown that opposite sex couples who used condoms during one out of four acts of intercourse reduced the risk of infection with HSV 2 for the woman — but not the man — by 92 percent. That is the article This is you: Condoms don't fully protect you against viral STDs, for Herpes (HSV) or Human Papiloma Virus (HSV) they quite suck for a man, they are only effective for women. Not only are they significantly different, the article has taken a portion of the study out of context - but yo…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 11:56 PM
1

TLDR: Condoms don't fully protect you against viral STDs, for Herpes (HSV) or Human Papiloma Virus (HSV) they quite suck for a man, they are only effective for women. Also don't forget about oral sex, you could get HSV or HPV, which is more stealth and causes oral cancer. Here is what your Planned Parenthood paper says: HSV-2: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 2 causes genital herpes. Studies have shown that opposite sex couples who used condoms during one out of four acts of intercourse reduced t…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 09:12 PM
1

quote it
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 08:38 PM
2

Condoms don't fully protect you against viral STDs, for Herpes (HSV) or Human Papiloma Virus (HSV) they quite suck for a man, they are only effective for women. Also don't forget about oral sex, you could get HSV or HPV, which is more stealth and causes oral cancer. Why would you think condoms are effective for women but not men? That makes no sense whatsoever. The virus lives in the epithelial tissue - anything that is not covered is at risk of the virus. The only thing that is covered is the s…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 07:52 PM
1

Instead of focusing on one journal, you might want to broaden your search but narrow your criteria. Google scholar "HPV vaccine adverse reactions" without a date limit gets these studies in order as they appear: From the Lancet:Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. This one from 2004 you have to pay for to get the details other than a general statment about it being…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 11:52 PM
1

Angioedema or hives, in this instance is an allergic reaction. You can get it from shampoo or food or pet dander. The fact that he happened to have a mild reaction to a vaccine isn't that surprising. I've had it myself. This is a known adverse reaction. The rest of this person's anecdote - that he's had some ongoing issue related to the vaccine, is not typical, is anecdotal, and is hearsay. Because of this, you need to ignore individual stories and focus on studies. How many people have had this…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 10:42 PM
1

It doesn't really matter as long as you're ending up with peer reviewed journals and studies. If you need tips for searching these databases or understanding the results, I may be able to help.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 09:35 PM
1

At one time somebody found there might be a difference in effectiveness duration between the genders and that may still be the case. I think you're mistaken and if you can't find it, you should stop saying it. What I have found many times, is that men are less likely to become seropositive to a natural infection - not the vaccine. This is fairly well known. Men have more infections, carry them longer, but have fewer cancers. The linked reports do not mention side effects which can be serious and…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 09:31 PM
2

Use Google Scholar to find the studies you're looking for. Just type Google Scholar in your search bar. Then type your search criteria in Google Scholar. That will limit your searchable databases to peer reviewed and professional journals. Diane Harper's studies are there but so are the hundreds of other studies regarding the vaccine. If you want to find out if the vaccine is effective for boys/men, you might search Google Scholar for that exact figure/phrase Harper is giving. I couldn't find an…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:11 PM
4

The HPV vaccine may not be as safe and effective as it is marketed. The vaccine does have side effects which can be as debilitating as cancer and for 40% of boys there is evidence that the protective antibodies wear off after two years There is no evidence of this. I explained this the last time you and I bumped into each other. The link you provided talks about Dr. Diane M. Harper who helped create the vaccine and continues to study it's safety and efficacy. I explained to you what her concern …
/r/MensRights09/11/17 05:04 PM
3

If this is your local paper, please respond to Happy Chappy and let him know that HPV is the primary risk factor in cervical cancer, not ovarian cancer. He can also help prevent giving his wife an STI by not having sex outside his marriage. I know...novel concept. He could also get the vaccine. Or make sure his wife has the vaccine. Or put her Pap smears on a calendar and make sure she gets them. His entire post was bullshit. Do you know this guy? Talk to him.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 04:28 PM
1

Point
/r/MensRights06/11/17 03:17 AM
3

This article is from the UK where the public health system is still only vaccinating girls. This is not the case in the United States where it is free for males and females as long as you have health insurance. The human papilloma virus is another risk factor, which is why charities are working to introduce a gender neutral HPV vaccination programme (it’s currently only given to girls). http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/04/signs-symptoms-and-causes-of-mouth-cancer-7053588/?ito=cbshare None of the HPV v…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 11:30 PM
1

Children that are 9 years old should not be getting this vaccine. The HPV risk before the age of 20 is near zero. Vaccines have a limited duration of effectiveness which the article claims is 10 years. Other numbers I have seen indicate 5 and 9.4 years for duration of effectiveness. There is also evidence that for 40% of boys the vaccine anti-bodies disappear after only 2 years. The reason that the vaccine is targeted at the age group just ramping up to sexual maturity is because there was no ac…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:53 PM
1

Regarding HPV tests: Pap smears aren't HPV tests. A Pap smear detects irregular cell growth - its a cancer screening. However, since the advent of actual HPV tests, the same cells collected during a Pap smear, can be used to perform the HPV test. There are a few FDA approved HPV tests now. One popular test is the hologic Aptima hpv assay,which is highly sensitive but does not offer genotyping (you can't tell specifically which type of HPV has been detected). Another test is the roche Cobas, whic…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:36 PM
1

Jesus Christ. THAT is what you got from that? A virus doesn't care if you're gay. A virus doesn't care if you feel persecuted for being male. It's a STATISTIC!
/r/MensRights05/11/17 04:53 PM
1

That's ORAL HPV, not overall sexually transmitted HPV infections. ("prevalence of any oral HPV was 7.3%") Men have oral HPV infections at a far higher rate than women. ("prevalence of any oral HPV was 7.3%") Women have cervical HPV infections 100% more than men. ALL cervical cancers are in women. You follow? (prevalence of any genital HPV was 42.5%) MOST oral HPV infections are in men. (most of the 7.3% makes a small portion of all HPV infections) There are far more genital HPV infections than t…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 04:58 AM
1

It just occurred to me that maybe your misunderstanding comes from ignorance of the virus itself. It lives in the epithelium - not in bodily fluids. If you have an HPV infection in your genital area, it is confined to the genital area unless it is spread by contact. A wart on your elbow is a symptom of an HPV infection of the elbow. You will find the virus on the elbow but not on the ear or knee. The types of sexually transmitted HPV are restricted to the environments where we produce lots of mu…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 04:18 AM
1

NO! That's ONLY ORAL HPV INFECTIONS. There are 100 apples. Girls are carrying 48 apples - 4 fewer than the boys. The boys are carrying 52 apples. The girls carry their apples in a sack on their waist and that causes 30% of all the apples they carry to rot. The boys carry most of their apples in a sack at their waist but they also are holding 10 apples in their hands. Their hands cause 50% of those apples to rot. Total rotten apples: .3X48=14.4 of the girls even though only 30% of their apples ro…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 04:06 AM
1

Here is the actual study the article references: National Centers for Health Statistics; Prevalence of HPV in Adults Aged 18-69: United States, 2011-2014 And here is a summary of what is inside: During 2013–2014, prevalence of any genital HPV was 42.5% among adults aged 18–59, 45.2% among men and 39.9% among women (Figure 3). ... During 2013–2014, the prevalence of high-risk HPV was 22.7% among adults aged 18–59, 25.1% among men and 20.4% among women (Figure 4).... During 2011–2014, prevalence o…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 03:45 AM
1

Thanks for not leaving me hanging!
/r/MensRights05/11/17 12:27 AM
1

"Cervical cancer showed the highest burden (31,130 cases), followed by head and neck cancer (6,786 cases)" "The annual number of new precancerous [cervical] lesions ... was estimated at 232,103 to 442,347 ..." Between 262,233 and 473477 cervical lesions and cancers per year compared to 6,786 head and neck cancers (of which most were men). There is no contest. It's a difference of at least 40% and that's not counting the head and neck cancers that occur in women. There is no comparison. The vacci…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 11:38 PM
1

u/Imnotmrabut posted another article on the same subject in this subreddit today. The problem is, that article is clearer and contradicts his assertions here - as does the actual study that the article refers to. I've posted the actual study about 4 times and it doesn't say anything like this article or anything like u/Inmotmrabut asserts ("1 in 4 people with HPV are Women. Please don't let the "1 in 4" feminist Constant Confuse YOU! 75% of people infected with HPV are MEN Research also shows th…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:39 PM
0

No one called you names. You only want me to leave you alone because I've pointed out a humiliating error. Which wouldn't have been humiliating if you hadn't tried to defend it. I don't need to write an article when the evidence has been posted and offered over and over and you just ignore it. You poor, poor victim. There you go - I've finally called you a name - victim.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:32 PM
1

Except that this article is talking about the United States specifically and in the United States, no one is denying the vaccine to males! There are many reasons for everyone to get the vaccine - there isn't any reason to misrepresent the facts and play victim to make this point!
/r/MensRights04/11/17 10:30 PM
0

In case you hadn't figured it out yet, this data is THE data your stupid article is referencing and THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS: During 2013–2014, prevalence of any genital HPV was 42.5% among adults aged 18–59, 45.2% among men and 39.9% among women (Figure 3). ... During 2013–2014, the prevalence of high-risk HPV was 22.7% among adults aged 18–59, ... During 2011–2014, prevalence of any oral HPV was 7.3% among adults aged 18–69, 11.5% among men and 3.3% among women (Figure 1).25.1% among men and 20.4%…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 09:05 PM
1

Except that you're flatly wrong. The difference is just a few percentage points and that is a result of several things INCLUDING male homosexuality! But to achieve the disparity you propose, you'd have to just about eliminate women from the picture all together? How can women both have more HPV related cancers and still only have 25% of the HPV infections? This flies in the face of everything you're trying to prove! You're nuts!
/r/MensRights04/11/17 09:00 PM
1

Not going to concede that you made an egregious, outlandish error in the face of actual evidence?
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:57 PM
1

Estimation of the overall burden of cancers, precancerous lesions, and genital warts attributable to 9-valent HPV vaccine types in women and men in Europe Results: The annual number of new cancers attributable to 9-valent HPV vaccine types was estimated at 47,992 (95% bound: 39,785-58,511). Cervical cancer showed the highest burden (31,130 cases), followed by head and neck cancer (6,786 cases), anal cancer (6,137 cases), vulvar cancer (1,466 cases), vaginal cancer (1,360 cases), and penile cance…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:49 PM
2

No, I'm attacking you for misinterpreting a shitty article. You're the one that said, in big bold print: "75% of people infected with HPV are MEN" I don't post articles about HPV unless they are articles in peer reviewed journals. I usually stick to studies - which I have offered about half a dozen times now.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:38 PM
0

You are taking a stat and demanding it's 100% fixed reality - see Conceratisation Fallacy. It is valid at the time of publication, but given how the pattern of cancer is being revealed over time and with the research your position is tenuous. Really? 75% of people infected with HPV are MEN That's you. How can men have 75% of the HPV infections unless they're mostly having sex with other men who've never been vaccinated? Talk about a paradigm shift. LOL
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:36 PM
0

You feel strongly on this matter so Please write a clear analysis of your views and post it as a thread for everyone to read. National Centers for Health Statistics; Prevalence of HPV in Adults Aged 18-69: United States, 2011-2014 I've posted this at least three times now plus a link to the CDC quoting the statistics on HPV related cancers. If you can't understand that, it's not my failure to be clear that is the problem here.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:34 PM
2

I've already given you clear data. Show me that you've read it and if you want more, I'll provide it. God knows there are decades worth of data. In fact, all you have to do is compare your two submissions like I just told you and you'll see that you can't possibly be right.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:28 PM
5

No it doesn't and you're not getting the whole picture. Men have more infections overall. Men also tend to hold onto an infection longer. Those two facts together contribute to a disparity in the number of infections both active and overall. BUT, the difference is just a few percentage points. AND, women STILL get more cancers and precancers than do men. BY FAR!! In the United States, the cell changes that lead to cervical cancer are detected by Pap smears. When that happens, it's called dysplas…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:26 PM
2

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7as0z8/more_men_have_hpv_than_women_study_funded_by_the/dpcbt3y/ How can you post both of these articles and not figure out how screwed up your statistics are? The one you post here is clear about the fact that the statistics apply to ORAL HPV. Either you were wrong in your other submission or you are wrong here. Hint: this one is closer to accurate. It's still not telling the whole story but it's a hell of a lot closer than your claim in the other th…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:18 PM
1

?? You "deny boys the vaccine" so they grow up and have sex with each other instead?? THINK! If men have 75% of sexually transmitted HPV infections, then who are they having sex with? Obviously not women!
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:06 PM
0

Not only is it wrong but if it were correct, you need to stop and think about what that would imply. HPV is spread by direct contact. If men had 75% of all sexually transmitted HPV, then who are they having sex with? It is absolutely understandable that men have more HPV infections than women because there is a direct correlation between number of partners and number of HPV infections. Men have more partners and they have more HPV infections. But it's nowhere near that lopsided. And if it were t…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 08:02 PM
8

This is flatly wrong. 100%, absolutely undeniably wrong. The article was misleading if you're not paying attention. The data however is NOT. National Centers for Health Statistics; Prevalence of HPV in Adults Aged 18-69: United States, 2011-2014
/r/MensRights04/11/17 07:58 PM
2

No, that is still misleading! Read for yourself:National Centers for Health Statistics; Prevalence of HPV in Adults Aged 18-69: United States, 2011-2014 HPV 16 is responsible for the most HPV related cancers overall - in both sexes. Men are more susceptible to oral HPV in general and HPV 16 is the type that causes most cancers. Therefore, men suffer more oral HPV related cancers and most of those are caused by HPV 16. But HPV 16 is also responsible for most penile cancers, anal cancers, cervical…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 07:44 PM
5

Again, this is incredibly misleading!! CDC HPV Cancer statistics Men are NOT 6 times more likely to have HPV 16. They are 6 times more likely to have ORAL HPV 16! From the article: More than three times as many men than women in the U.S. have oral infections with human papillomavirus (HPV), a virus responsible for causing 31,500 new cancers every year, found a new study. From the CDC: 39,800 HPV-associated cancers occur in the United States each year: about 23,300 among women, and about 16,500 a…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 06:40 PM
6

WHOA! This article is highly misleading!!!! Be careful! Men do have HPV at a higher rate than do women but what they MEANT to say was that 11.5 million men have ORAL HPV as compared to 3.2 million women. ORAL HPV The rate of overall HPV infection between men and women is only a few points different. AND, even though men have more HPV infections, women have more HPV cancers.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 06:27 PM
1

Yes. That's what I meant by saying that if I'd used uterus, it would have been a complete removal - a step beyond a LEEP. That's why I said "good call".
/r/MensRights03/11/17 06:17 AM
1

In place of uterus? It probably would have been a better word. If I used uterus then I shouldn't have included epithelium since it would be removal of the entire uterus rather than just the epithelial tissue. Plus ovaries, and fallopian tubes. Good call.
/r/MensRights03/11/17 06:03 AM
2

Well as long as it is free for anyone. 1 in 6 women will be diagnosed with dysplasia every year and about 30% of those cases would go on to cancer without removing the epithelium of the uterus. That's about 4,000,000 women. Granted, only about 23,000 actual cancers in women and 16,500 cancers in men... Then there are all the cases of genital warts... But it's not an issue of sex discrimination. It's an issue of gutting Obamacare.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 10:59 PM
6

??? Are you in the US? Vaccination for boys is free under Obamacare if you have insurance.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 10:25 PM
13

--women's health services and health issues: Breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, HPV vaccines, public funding through Obamacare for birth control, abortion services You say so much in this one little bullet point. Why should men care about HPV vaccines if they don't care about women? Because HPV causes cancer in men almost as frequently as it causes cancer in women. Obamacare/the ACA, did not provide funding for birth control. It provided insurance coverage of birth control for women…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 10:28 PM
3

I'm sure you've noticed that the US is constantly in political turmoil over our healthcare system. YOU have the option of public health care. In the United States, unless you are impoverished, health care is private. That means you have to pay for it yourself either out of pocket or by buying an insurance policy that covers the costs of health care. So in the United States, if you want the vaccine, you can get the vaccine. It doesn't matter if you are male or female. We have the Food and Drug Ad…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 07:00 PM
7

That's a very good article! Well done! In r/mensrights though, it's important to understand where this came from in the first place. The very first evidence that HPV could cause cancer was discovered and published by Harald zur Hausen who won a Nobel Prize for it in 2008. He was quite specifically looking for the cause of cervical cancer since it kills about half a million quarter million women every year worldwide (almost half of those who are diagnosed with cervical cancer die from it). Most o…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 06:46 PM
9

About damn time.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 07:44 PM
5

Rape is a word that is seldom found in court anymore due to the definition having been construed to mean only penetration. The transition to sexual assault is actually far more inclusive and now allows for women like this to be charged with felonies similar to those or penetrative rape.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 05:23 PM
1

Why didn't you get the HPV vaccine before you decided to have sex? Jesus. You people need to think more about reality and less about this fucking redpill bullshit.
/r/askTRP29/09/17 09:33 PM
1

Get the HPV vaccine!
/r/askTRP11/07/17 02:49 AM
1

HPV is spread by contact and the STI strains live in the mucosal epithelium (skin with mucous glands). That includes your anogenital area (penis, perineum, anus, vagina, vulva, clitoris, lips), and your mouth and throat. It can even infect lungs but this is more common in children who get it from the birth canal. It doesn't travel in your blood or secretions - only on contact. If you put your hand in an infected spot and then put that hand in another susceptible spot, you're making yourself a ve…
/r/askTRP27/06/17 06:15 PM
1

You just need to have a quick, slightly awkward conversation before sex with new partners now. Temporarily. I wouldn't even bother disclosing 6 months after the warts are gone. The CDC says 90% of all HPV infections clear within 2 years and most of those within 6 months.
/r/askTRP27/06/17 06:11 PM
1

The new vaccine covers 9 strains - 5 more than the original. If he hasn't been infected by all 9, the vaccine can still prevent infection by any he hasn't been exposed to.
/r/askTRP27/06/17 06:10 PM
2

Women don't get tested for the strains of HPV that can cause genital warts either. When they reach 30, they get an HPV test once every 5 years with their Pap smears but ONLY for the types that cause cancer and they don't cause warts. That's because HPV doesn't do any lasting damage unless it's the cancer causing strains and you have some other risk factors that help it lead to cancer. Besides that, there is no way in the world you can prove that you got HPV from a specific partner. It can take m…
/r/askTRP26/06/17 08:50 PM
2

You didn't get tested for HPV. No one is going to test you for HPV. You can ask for a complete STI screen and you're still not going to be tested for either HPV or HSV (herpes). The only way you'll ever be diagnosed with HPV is if you pick up a strain that causes genital warts because they can be diagnosed just by looking. Likewise, the only time you'll get tested for herpes is if you have an outbreak and manage to get an appointment WHILE you're having an outbreak. If you've had unprotected sex…
/r/askTRP09/06/17 05:09 PM
2

The acronym is literally the first letter of the three part name of the virus. HPV = human papillomavirus and HIV is human immunodeficiency virus and HSV is herpes simplex virus There are approximately 219 viruses that are known to infect humans (not including the various subsets of each virus) That's like complaining that math is intentionally confusing. It's not made to confuse you, it's made to answer questions/fix problems. People aren't making up acronyms to confuse you.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 12:56 AM
2

This is false. It isn't even close. According to the CDC, the list of cancers known to be associated with HPV are: Cervical (almost exclusively due to HPV) 12,000 women in the US, 0 men (for obvious reasons) Vaginal cancer (multiple risk factors - not all caused by HPV) 4,800 women in the US, 0 men Vulvar cancer (not exclusively HPV but HPV is a risk factor) 6,000 women in the US, 0 men Penile cancer (not exclusively HPV but HPV is a risk factor) 2,100 men in the US, 0 women Anal cancer (Almost …
/r/MensRights19/03/17 12:49 AM
1

That's the first time I've seen a statistic that low actually. I'm suspicious of the entire study and the randomness of their sample because of that one figure. The figures I've seen most have been between 70 and 75%. I read a study just the other day that found not only 75% of the men sampled had been exposed to HPV but 50% of those that tested positive for HPV tested positive for more than one type. That means they'd been exposed multiple times. 2% tested positive for 8 different types of HPV.…
/r/MensRights18/03/17 06:14 PM
1

No. It wasn't. The link between HPV and cervical cancer became evident in the 1950s. No one who had cervical cancer didn't also have HPV and no one that didn't have HPV ever got cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is the only almost completely preventable cancer. That's one reason that it's a little different. It's an easy target. That's a lot different than oropharyngeal cancer. The greatest risk factor in cancers of the head and neck (mouth and throat), is smoking. It wasn't at all as clear that …
/r/MensRights18/03/17 06:06 PM
1

What? Wouldn't this entire discussion prove that concentrating on sexual dimorphism put men at risk? Yes, yes it would!
/r/MensRights18/03/17 05:53 PM
1

This article has many errors. First and foremost, In addition, HPV is the leading cause of genital herpes. NOPE! Herpes is a virus and HPV is a different virus (and the flu and rhinovirus are also viruses). They are completely unrelated in any other way. Having one does not cause the other except that you may be more susceptible to another virus if your immune system is compromised. This goes for ANY virus. This is like saying that having a cat causes you to have a dog. Completely unrelated. Nex…
/r/MensRights18/03/17 05:45 PM
1

See...there you go talking about what "feminists" are thinking. Try this on for size: Not only that, Jews in the UK are constantly selling junk and taking over the media... ... Calling blacks who act like niggers, Nigger is not racist. Blacks are interested in only one thing: screwing our women. When you paint an entire class of people with the same brush, you're the one using bad logic. YOU are the one being irrational. As I said before, if you have a specific complaint about a specific problem…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 01:34 AM
1

The argument doesn't ask what feminists think, it asserts that what feminists think is known: "Feminists would have you believe..." I'm only asking that OP matches the assertion to the argument because the argument itself is poorly constructed. No, it's worse than just poorly constructed. It's juvenile and weak and I'm very sorry that so many people simply go along with it.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 12:59 AM
1

You: It is hard to take feminists seriously on domestic violence when it is clear they are only concerned with violence against women perpetrated by men. Lesbian domestic violence is MUCH more probable yet they are silent on it. Violence against men pretty much completely denied. US Dept. of Justice Female Victims of Violence Selected Findings Nonfatal intimate partner violence * Intimate partner violence includes victimization committed by spouses or exspouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, and ex…
/r/MensRights26/02/17 05:55 PM
1

It's not about what I think it means, it's about consistency in the argument. If "threat" is just death then it's okay to go on to say "...men are not even in the top ten causes of death among women..." But OP says "feminism would have you believe that men are the number one threat to women". Well does "feminism" mean death when "feminism" says threat? It's an inconsistent argument. Example: "The CDC predicts 20% of the US population will get the flu this season". I could say the threat of flu t…
/r/MensRights26/02/17 04:18 PM
1

Still not finding it. I hate to be a pain in the ass but I've tried everything. Can you give me a hand?
/r/MensRights26/02/17 02:34 AM
1

Thank you. I'm looking for it. I haven't found it yet but am enjoying the podcast so - score!
/r/MensRights26/02/17 12:09 AM
1

Hey, where did you get this data?
/r/MensRights25/02/17 10:59 PM
1

Yes. I understand. I'm questioning where "threat" equates to "death". This is just one long list of false equivalencies. If you're afraid of your wife beating you every night, that's a threat to your safety. threat =/ death
/r/MensRights25/02/17 10:36 PM
1

FBI 10 year arrest trends by gender
/r/MensRights25/02/17 10:32 PM
0

So when OP asserts that "Feminism would have you believe that men are the number one threat to women...", what he is really saying is "Feminism would have you believe that men murdering women is the number one cause of death in women?" Is that what "threat" means? Is this a secret code or something?
/r/MensRights25/02/17 10:06 PM
1

Dude, the article you posted does not say it's being taught, it says the opposite. Read your own article.
/r/MensRights25/02/17 09:50 PM
2

Then why were you so offended by my discussion? You're the one that took it personally. You could just as easily have said "yes, you're right, I agree".
/r/MensRights25/02/17 09:00 PM
1

You posted it.
/r/MensRights25/02/17 08:56 PM
1

If you feel that way then you can surely see why it's stupid to use them in your own argument. Right? Get it?
/r/MensRights25/02/17 08:39 PM
0

Here's what the CDC says about IPV (Intimate Partner Violence): CDC NISVS Infographic And here's what they have to say about the perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence With respect to sexual violence and stalking, female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators, whereas for male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the specific form of violence examined. Male rape victims predominantly …
/r/MensRights25/02/17 08:35 PM
1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3867308/School-program-gets-hate-mail-saying-men-greatest-threat-women.html First, did you actually read the article you just cited? And second, this wouldn't make your argument any better even if it did justify your anger! The argument is still just awful logic! Hey, here's a thought, you could actually go to the website for the Frame Initiative and see what it's about...just a thought: Frame Initiatives
/r/MensRights25/02/17 07:50 PM
2

This is a terrible argument. You're shooting yourself in the foot with this logic. Watch: "Mens Rights would have you believe that women are the number one threat to men. In reality women are not even in the top ten causes of death among men either in the United States (per CDC) or worldwide (per WHO)" Men are in the top ten causes of death among men both in the United States (per CDC) and worldwide (per WHO) Etc... Guys, I want to help you out. I really do. It's these kinds of fallacious argume…
/r/MensRights25/02/17 06:45 PM
-5

"Girls..." A girl is an adolescent. Stop calling women girls. Stop thinking of women as adolescents. A woman is responsible for her actions, a girl is not.
/r/MensRights25/02/17 04:38 AM
1

Many advocates for eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood have argued that federally qualified community health centers, which also serve many patients insured using Medicaid, could care for Planned Parenthood’s patients instead. The National Association of Community Health Centers, the umbrella organization for those providers, brought in $34 million in revenue last year, according to company filings, a small fraction of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. Its chief executive, Thomas J. Van Cover…
/r/PussyPass20/02/17 05:58 PM
0

I disagree. If you go to the local car salesman, drunk, and initiate the purchase of a car, guess who has to take the car back when you have buyer's remorse the next day? Don't have sex with a drunk person.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 01:46 AM
3

Sex is risky as shit! Don't have drunk sex unless you're in a long term committed relationship and you both agree that you're going to get drunk/intoxicated and have sex. We drink and have sex because alcohol lowers inhibition. Well, shit, that has massive consequences! The fact of that matter is that, in most cases, you're physically bigger and need to keep your wits about you so you can hear/feel/see that you need to stop if things are going south. Your inhibitions can help you with that - unl…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 01:38 AM
0

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html Do it yourself. Get educated.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 01:19 AM
1

Ms. Richards does make a lot of money relative to the rest of the American work force. Her pay puts her in the top 1 percent of all earners in the United States. But her salary is actually on the low side when it is compared with executive pay at other large nonprofits. When compared with the pay for hospital executives running nonprofit health care organizations of similar budgets, it is actually well below the norm. Ms. Richards’s pay is similar to that of a chief executive of a hospital with …
/r/MGTOW18/02/17 10:19 PM
1

New York Times; Is Planned Parenthood's President Overpaid? Ms. Richards does make a lot of money relative to the rest of the American work force. Her pay puts her in the top 1 percent of all earners in the United States. But her salary is actually on the low side when it is compared with executive pay at other large nonprofits. When compared with the pay for hospital executives running nonprofit health care organizations of similar budgets, it is actually well below the norm. ... Ms. Richards’s…
/r/PussyPass18/02/17 10:15 PM
1

Yep. My family are overrepresented in law enforcement. I see and hear it literally every day. There are women AND men who take advantage of every weakness in the system and get away with it. Wayyyy back in 1988-89, I was the victim of a violent crime. I was attacked by a gang of women. I was hurt a lot worse than the bouncer from Perth. While I was in the hospital emergency department, the same gang of women stabbed my father! You would think that they got off scot free because they were women b…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:57 PM
0

Because soldiers spend a long time away from women, and get really horny. After being desensitized to violence, rape becomes nothing. That's why us guys in the Navy tend to hit up whores in port. ... No women + sexual imperative + desensitization to violence = rape. ...Our innate sexual imperative and dominance. We want to fuck, and propagate our genes. When boys are taught to be faggoty beta types, and aren't able to fuck because women aren't attracted to that, they get really fucked up in the …
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:50 PM
0

You know what you could do? You could google "grandmother rape victim" If you just google rape victims, you'll get lots and lots and lots of pictures of murdered women if you're into that kind of thing. You're kind of creeping me out asking for pictures.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:43 PM
0

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/10/science/new-studies-map-the-mind-of-the-rapist.html?pagewanted=all
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:39 PM
0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7386658
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:36 PM
1

The fact that a woman did this should not give her a literal get out of jail free card. This is the part I was talking about. You seemed to be implying - in spite of your scenario, that THIS case is one of sex discrimination. In this thread, I found and posted the MAXIMUM penalties and I also found a study done by this court system on this specific crime which compares sentencing and circumstances. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5um14y/male_disposability_in_action_woman_slashes/ddv…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:28 PM
0

Remember the "ask a rapist" thread? Ever wonder why rape is a thing in war? Ever stop to think about rape in the prison setting? Ever wonder why men are more often rapists than women? (Even though studies show that women are not "better" people in general)?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:22 PM
1

I did a little leg work before commenting. My very first comment here was to ask if anyone knew the standard penalties for this crime. No one responded so I looked it up as best I could. It's here in this comment section or you can dig through my post history - or you could do the same thing I did and Google for yourself. Her fine - if she didn't have priors - seems to be in line. As appalling as that seems, it does not appear to be a case of sexism.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:21 PM
1

I made no such accusations. I'm literally making up something to draw an analogy. Her attack was physical so I made your make believe attack physical as well. The point being that the actual damage done makes a difference in sentencing. Yes, I agree, she fully intended to harm him. I have no idea if she understood how serious it could have been. Unless she has some history of this kind of thing, I doubt she'd figure it out. "I'd want to start plotting the long revenge and fuck that asshole's lif…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:19 PM
1

Right up until about 30 seconds ago, I'm still the only person commenting on this post that bothered to see how the courts deal with these types of charges. Did you do that and found something I didn't or did you just make an assumption and run with it? The difference between needing stitches and not needing stitches is immense in the eyes of the court because that's where actual damages are considered. Lets say you've plotted to get revenge on some woman who drunkenly attacked a bouncer in West…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:56 PM
1

I actually posted a link to the Perth court's examination of their charging and sentencing of this offense (AOBH). You should take a look at it. (You can dig here or in my post history). Indeed, it seems that those who get jail time are very serious and usually accompanied by simultaneous crimes, multiple victims, and violent criminal history. The only one that came close was a guy who got into an argument with a store clerk (a 17 year old), broke the kid's nose and broke three teeth. He had onl…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:53 PM
0

If this is a serious question I'd like to discuss it. Rape isn't about sexual gratification, it's a power trip. "I can do this to you if I want to - I can do anything I want to you". Victims can be women, children, men, inmates...it doesn't matter what they look like. It only matters that they can be fucked.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:30 PM
1

In order to prove your theory, you need to actually find out if others charged with the same crime and circumstances are getting different sentencing. Did you go ahead and do that?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:20 PM
1

Throwing acid in someone's face: premeditated motivated by revenge specifically intended to inflict maximum lifelong physical and emotional suffering over represented in societies where it is specifically intended to mark the victim in society as being a whore Woman convicted of AOBH and fined: a bar fight did not even result in stitches Your solution "If I were that dude, I'd want to start plotting the long revenge and fuck that asshole's life up in every way possible.": premeditated motivated …
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:07 PM
1

I fail to see how this is different than a man throwing acid in a woman's face. If I were that dude, I'd want to start plotting the long revenge and fuck that asshole's life up in every way possible. ... Your appeal to emotion shows...
/r/MensRights18/02/17 03:15 PM
2

In the United States (and I think it's the same in Australia), all criminal offenses are crimes against the state and victims are witnesses. A civil action may be brought between the parties but that's between them. The state is there to enforce laws on behalf of the community, not to make victims whole.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:18 AM
2

made me weak in the knees actually.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:59 AM
7

acid attack victim acid attack victim acid attack victim bouncer from Perth I fail to see how you equate these two. The bouncer didn't even get stitches. I'm sorry but that is a ludicrous and unnecessary comparison.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 12:56 AM
2

Okay, here's an advertisement for lawyers in Perth that spells out the maximum penalties for Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm (which is what she was charged with): some attorney's website because I can't find the actual criminal code. According to WA Law for the charge of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm (AOBH),If the offence is dealt with in the District Court, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years. .... If the matter is dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court; the maximum penalty is 2 yea…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:20 PM
1

I think your point is lost. At least, I hope it's just lost and you're not actually saying that this guy deserved it because he's a bouncer doing his job. There was no excuse for her behavior. When I tried to Google information about this specific court case however, I got loads and loads of hits on bouncers getting in trouble for violence and drugs - as you said. That is irrelevant except that a bouncer expects to face violence on the job. I'd be surprised if he said that was his first physical…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 10:42 PM
6

I agree but if this is her first offense in the courts then it would be nonstandard for her to be sent to prison. The pdf that I linked you to is from a court's own examination of penalties. Be sure to read the legend at the top before you dig in or you'll just be scratching your head for a while.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 09:53 PM
8

What is the normal penalty for this assault in Perth? Edit:Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for Western Australia, Comparative Sentencing Tables I don't know about this case in particular but what I'm seeing is that actual jail time is meted out to criminals with extensive and violent records.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 09:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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