TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Upstairs_Reaction_18 Archive

View 0 posts and 142 comments by Upstairs_Reaction_18 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)
11

Nobody knows what exactly they are claiming, so it’s hard to help you. A haircut for a man is different from a haircut for a woman.
/r/MensRights07/06/23 07:06 PM
3

In big cities you don’t help a dying person, a person being raped, a person being mugged. You step over them. It’s awful what our cities have become.
/r/MensRights07/06/23 06:12 PM
-26

The only ppl who care are brainwashed into victimhood politics.
/r/MensRights06/06/23 12:40 AM
1

Division of labor just makes sense. Most companies don’t divide all responsibilities equally, they are divided according to personal preferences and abilities. House work is no different. My wife is not getting out a ladder to change a light bulb in the soffit of the house. Ain’t happening.
/r/MensRights04/06/23 01:21 PM
1

No artificial sperm, but there are sperm banks and plenty of men who would donate, even with boots on their necks.
/r/MensRights01/06/23 06:28 PM
2

Reaching across the aisle is asking to get bit, some people embrace and pick at their wounds to keep them from healing. They want to hate you.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 10:33 PM
1

Not a bad idea. Men are generally more aggressive and are more likely to be successful in suicide attempts than women, but it’s still a great idea to look at how to reduce suicide rates.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 01:30 PM
1

We know that men die younger due to trauma and suicide and at birth. My point is let’s look at the causes and not whine about things like jumping off bridges in a wing suit kind of deaths, let’s DO look at prostate cancer death rates, by all means.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:54 PM
1

Trauma-related deaths lower male life expectancy. Taking risks is risky, who knew? A better metric would be life expectancy for men vs women once they reach age 65 or more and stratify that according to health-only, and not accidents and suicides.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:45 PM
1

There is no racial bias, if you look at stats that compare “apples to apples”, Whites are no less likely to be “killed by cop” than Blacks are. As for men vs women, I’d bet the same thing is true. Men commit more crimes and more violent crimes and are a bigger threat to police than women are. This is not a men’s rights issue. We have real fish to fry, we don’t need to pretend that violent street crime is not predominantly committed by men.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:37 PM
1

Agree with that. Maybe I said it wrong?
/r/MensRights29/05/23 11:08 PM
-4

A father should support his children financially. If women want equality, then the responsibility should be split evenly. I am against equality if equality means dividing everything equally, that’s not possible to do. Women are not equally qualified to be soldiers for example. They are equal in other areas.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:12 PM
-3

Oh I agree about the lack of respect, and I agree that men are getting screwed big time. I’m just saying that traditional roles allowed for boundaries and respect to be accorded to men, even as men shouldered the responsibilities of protecting hearth and home and providing. The problem is feminism.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:10 PM
-6

Child support might be structured wrong, but in principle it makes sense.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:04 PM
-5

I was at Mass this morning and a large group of Philippine immigrants sang “God Bless America” for the closing hymn. What a beautiful group of people they were. They appreciate what America did to save the Philippines in WW2. That appreciation for what others did for you is an important part of culture. You did not create yourself, you did not raise yourself, you did not invent America or make it a wonderful homeland. You sound like an entitled person. As for your family, there is no doubt that …
/r/MensRights29/05/23 04:55 PM
1

She’s crazy as hell. What a witch.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 04:28 PM
49

Agreed. My wife once flipped another driver off, and I told her “don’t do that!” She can do her own fighting if she wants to, but I’m not going to help her. Men instinctively know that road rage can get ugly in a hurry; women take advantage of the fact that men can’t punch them. If a woman wants to act like a man, then she can deal with the results like a man.
/r/MensRights23/05/23 07:59 PM
51

Anti White is the acceptable prejudice now.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 03:07 PM
6

True. Good point. But it’s on life support.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 02:34 PM
0

Could be that you need surgery but you don’t have insurance. That’s a tough one. Neurosurgeons get sued all the time, “nobody” (there could be somebody) wants to take on that risk for free.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 02:15 PM
40

Chivalry is dead, and feminism killed it.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:31 PM
0

Is surgery for a herniated disc an option in your case?
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:07 PM
1

Your diagnosis could be helpful maybe.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:06 PM
2

You’re a troll. You’re a male, I can tell.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:32 AM
4

Totally sexist and related.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:30 AM
3

How would that be true? Have you counted or looked at surveys?
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:30 AM
6

Are there female incels? If not, why not? Because there are females who don’t get men too, why is that term only used against men?
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:22 AM
-17

I don’t know all the reasons that ppl do it, but a guy whose dad had him circumcised and has no apparent sexual dysfunction (not “oh shit my orgasms could have been super orgasmic, like really out of this world gnarly stratospheric orgasmic”) needs to leave his dad the hell alone and be happy that he’s really just fine and normal and gonna ok.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 07:20 PM
-35

You think you’ve been done wrong but you have not, good gawd the histrionics from these anti circ people is just like the feminists. Let’s stop this shit on this site. I hate feminism, but crazy intactivists are just the same. What the fuck is going on?
/r/MensRights18/05/23 04:30 PM
-5

Enjoy.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 03:10 AM
-3

Look up in ‘google scholar’: “sexual function after adult circumcision “. There are review articles there. Look up Cochrane review of circumcision. I used regular google. I’m not going to argue with people about this again, fanatics are fanatics and data means nothing to them. Do your own research. But it’s all right there on google scholar.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 03:10 AM
-3

I just went through a shit ton of back and forth with about 10 people on another post about this. I can link the whole putrid thing, I’m not doing all that shit again. I’m not going to argue with fanatics.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 02:55 AM
-5

Studies of adult men circumcised as adults prove that you are correct. The intactivists are very emotional and irrational.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 02:03 AM
0

Ok that’s wonderful. That is a straw man as far as I am concerned, because I am not arguing for or advocating against routine circumcision. I am SAYING, this girl’s brother is fine, his life is not ruined, his dick is not ruined, and his sexuality will be unaffected. Because that’s what the STUDIES SHOW! Dammit I wish ppl would pay attention.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:10 PM
-1

That is all fine and dandy. My point is that such studies yielded the result that circumcision is accepted by adult men quite well and they do not feel mutilated or sexually altered. Good grief this gets tiresome arguing the wrong stuff. I am NOT advocating for or against the procedure for HIV transmission reduction OR for routine neonatal circumcision. How many fucking times do I have to say this shit?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:06 PM
-1

Explain the studies. Adult men who are circumcised as adults are quite happy and notice no difference. The aggregate data of thousands of men shows that. Stomp and scream all you want to, I provided data and studies. You intactvists have lots of emotions but no studies or data.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 03:54 PM
-1

Ridiculous. Utter nonsense. No studies suggest that adults circumcised as adults notice any difference. Good grief. Besides, men circumcised as infants enjoy sex quite well, how ecstatic can it be?! How would they know what they’re missing?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:55 AM
-1

Stories or studies? Big difference. I have heard no such stories. I have read studies.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:10 PM
2

Oh yeah, I’ve been banned by them numerous times. That’s a percent sign of what we are talking about.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:07 PM
2

Agreed. “We” can have actual disagreements between us, “they” circle the wagons. My belief is that conservatives are motivated by the search for truth, liberals are motivated by power dynamics. Of course I’m biased, but I came at this bias through experience. Can I prove the assertion? No, and therein lies the problem.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:54 PM
0

There’s this study: Examining penile sensitivity in neonatally circumcised and intact men using quantitative sensory testing Jennifer A Bossio, Caroline F Pukall, Stephen S Steele The Journal of Urology 195 (6), 1848-1853, 2016 Conclusions: Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for penile sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the foreskin during neonatal circumcision. Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sen…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:46 PM
-1

Faux indignation? I’m not indignant at all. My point is that the culture with the greatest and longest history of circumcision does not find it to be mutilating in the least. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:41 PM
-1

I did not argue for routine neonatal circumcision. I said, now pay attention, see if you can handle this, I know that you’re very emotional: it does not cause dysfunction or damage to sensation. Wow! Did your head explode? Look at studies. There are entire medical organizations that are recommending circumcision to lower rates of STD transmission. There are putative medical benefits. Adult circumcision has very high acceptance rates. I don’t advocate for it or against it. Now go take a nap.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 08:27 PM
1

You’re fine. Take your victimhood and reject it. No study shows what you’re claiming. Life is not fun when you create your own victimization. And that’s a huge contribution to you if you embrace it. And no, I will not leave if someone else engages me. The science just doesn’t support your beliefs.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 07:53 PM
1

Ok, let’s tell the kid how violated and ruined he is, that won’t have any dramatic impact on him/s. All you intactivists need therapy it seems to me. You’re just like the feminists who think they are victims.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 07:22 PM
-3

Look at the studies. I know that you want to believe something based on using your own pre-conceived ideas, but I like facts and evidence. If this procedure, that has been around for millennia, caused all those horrible side effects, don’t you think that the Jews would have figured that out by now? Are Jews stupid? Ignorant? Why are they happy? Shouldn’t all the men be suicidal?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:29 PM
-1

I never once argued for doing it as a routine for neonates. Not once. Pay attention, words have meanings. I am telling this person that her brother is just fine, no worries.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:25 PM
-4

Could you try to be more original than the old “just tell me that you….without telling me….” routine? It’s an internet staple and very old. As for my statements, common sense would tell you that if neonatal circumcision led to severe sexual side effects, we would have known that for the last 3,000 years, but somehow, some way, circumcised mankind has managed to reproduce just fine, and the Jews are still with us, and they seem to be happy enough. If sex could be any more pleasurable than circumc…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:24 PM
0

False. A study was done of African men to lower rates of HIV transmission, so they were not selected for pre-operative problems. So your premise is false. I am not advocating for anything. I am saying that it doesn’t matter. Big difference.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 04:35 PM
0

The postop med list would not include anything about the injection of local anesthetic, so what exactly are you claiming? Writing out a med list has nothing to do with injection of lidocaine at the time of the procedure. Did you watch the entire procedure? Do you KNOW that they did not inject lidocaine?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:34 PM
0

Who did the circumcision? Because that’s really poor form. ACOG and AAP call for local anesthetic to be given. I would ask the charge nurse about that. The doctor who did that needs to be educated about that.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:29 PM
2

A person asked about her brother. Her brother is fine. His life will be fine, as many millions of men have had perfectly happy sex lives being circumcised as neonates. Maybe their orgasms were not intense enough to send them to heaven, maybe that’s a good thing, maybe they would have gone into orgasmic orbit and had heart attacks, who knows?! (That’s sarcastic, don’t lose your mind). Studies (large ones) have shown that adult males who were sexually active and circumcised as adults did not notic…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:31 PM
2

Look at the studies. You can fail to see whatever you want to, but it doesn’t make it objectively true. Skin is skin, the foreskin is claimed to be histologically “special”, but histology is not the same as clinically sensitive or relevant. Men circumcised as neonates are quite happy sexually, maybe they are missing something, but studies say the opposite. So, accept reality please. You can oppose the procedure ON OTHER GROUNDS, that’s fine, but you cannot call it mutilation. What other grounds?…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:05 PM
9

Thanks Joe Biden. Libtards don’t give a shit, on one hand they want “human rights”, on the other they want “other cultures” to be autonomous, except when they don’t, which is never clear.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:47 PM
0

Is removing wisdom teeth mutilation? I fail to see how excess skin, no matter how sensitive, that is not clinically relevant to functioning is “necessary”. It is not missed by its owners when it is removed as adults. It is not objectively more sensitive, studies show that. What is occasionally necessary is adult circumcision for complications of having foreskin. It’s not common, but it happens. It’s not a reason to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, which I believe is driven mostly by wome…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:45 PM
1

It is not mutilation. It is not necessary for routine practice. I did not argue for it or against it. I argued facts.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:15 PM
1

Studies show what they show: no loss of function or sensation. I know that bothers you but I like to live in the real world.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:13 PM
-9

True. I did not argue for neonatal circumcision did I?! Details matter. I made very specific claims.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:00 PM
2

Here we go. Clinical studies, actual real world results, and even “pin prick” testing, shows NO LOSS OF SENSATION. I think of foreskin as excess skin. The emotional wrecks here get exercised about the Meissner corpuscles that are removed. Umkay, histology vs clinical real world results? Pay attention: good studies of sexually active adult men circumcised as adults show no loss of sensation or function. I know you don’t want that to be true, but I don’t try to make things be true, I accept truth …
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:49 AM
1

Studies show no loss of sensation. Emotionally uncontrolled rage mobs here deny the studies. I don’t know how to respond to that. Millions of circumcised men have had happy and re-productive lives for many many centuries. If you want to worry that they could have had even better, multi orgasmic, out of this world sex lives, go ahead, agonize yourself into a frothy frenzy. I’m quite content and functional, thanks for the concern though.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:40 AM
-1

No.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:37 AM
1

If you want a crusade, crusade about prostate cancer research funding, or the rates of death that increased after screening for the disease was down-played.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:37 AM
-5

When was it done? Who did it? Because it sounds like no local anesthetic was given, or it was not effective and they did it anyway. Poor form.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:26 AM
-2

No loss of function or sensation, that’s why.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:25 AM
4

You have a persistence that is irrational.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:25 AM
-10

Local anesthetic is given in America currently, and is done routinely. I am not advocating for routine circumcision. I am telling someone that her brother is going to be ok.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:07 AM
2

Did you look at the rates? Maybe that has something to do with screening guidelines?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:05 AM
2

Go get tested. The rest of us are not concerned about getting HP fucking V-related cancers.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:03 AM
3

Rates of cervical cancer vs male HPV-related cancers? Men at high risk can certainly get tested. The rest of us don’t need screening. Is that ok with you?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:00 AM
-37

It’s not mutilation. It’s also not necessary. Adult men who get circumcised as adults notice no problems at all, no change in sexual function. Some of the MRAs here lose their minds when told that. I would not worry about it, but the emotional wrecks here (they accuse feminists of being emotional, it’s pathetic) will self-explode their heads on me in 3, 2, 1…..
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:55 AM
3

Pap smears look at cells for cancer. Men do not get cervical cancer. HPV is a virus that can “cause” mucosal cancers in both men and women. Many (most) cervical cancers are “caused by” HPV. (Quotes to indicate that causation from viruses is not always the ONLY risk factor). I don’t think that this is a men’s rights issue.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:47 AM
1

Good points, agreed, thanks. The JD thing is silly in my opinion.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:13 AM
3

He was specific about the kinds of departments that he was against. He did not say that female PhDs in the “hard sciences” (hard meaning scientific and not meaning “difficult”) did not work as hard as the men.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:32 PM
2

He clearly was discussing PhDs, not law or Medicine. There are PhDs in many fields, a PhD in education is very different from one in chemistry.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:02 PM
1

Psychologists don’t give drugs. So I think that you’re “literally” wrong.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:01 PM
-5

You should have said “such as ‘you’”, not “such as ‘yourself’”.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 12:35 PM
1

What is available? We run deficits and have huge debts. Period. If you want to cut huge spending elsewhere, maybe you can “find the money”. How many times have we been promised that bullshit?
/r/MensRights15/05/23 01:10 AM
1

I’m pretty sure that it’s you who doesn’t understand economics.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 12:22 AM
1

Yeah ok. No, we don’t have trillions of dollars of debt, not at all. Inflation?! Pfffft….just print more money! Reee!
/r/MensRights14/05/23 03:43 PM
1

Well your idea is stupid on the face of it. Who is paying for these services? With what money? Who is the intended recipient? Everyone? Collectivism has worked for social services for exactly where and when?
/r/MensRights14/05/23 03:00 PM
1

Everything should be free and then there won’t be any problems. Easy peasy. Can you please learn basic economics?
/r/MensRights14/05/23 08:25 AM
1

No, religion determines whether you even want a family, or how that family would be structured, what your rights and responsibilities are vis-a-vis that family, whether it will be matriarchal or patriarchal or polyamorous or…..
/r/MensRights12/05/23 08:45 PM
4

“All” cultural phenomena are religiously based. If I am Genghis Khan, I don’t give a fuck about family. If I’m Adolph Hitler, I want to fuck up your family. If I’m Joseph Epstein, I want to fuck your family. Etc. A Muslim might want four wives. A Christian is allowed only one wife. Etc.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 08:37 PM
1

We were talking about families, yes? The very idea of a family is a religious construct to me. Marriage is a religious construct. They can be turned into a governmental contractual construct if people want to do that, but the results have been dismal.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 07:31 PM
3

No, I have not. My beliefs about “the family” are religious and not secular.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 07:08 PM
9

I’d say that is a bad thing for society, agreed, and it is not a good sign.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 04:29 PM
94

This can’t be good for a society to live this way. Families matter.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 11:55 AM
2

Biden manipulated you apparently. You do know that he has dementia? You do know that the economy sucks? The dollar has lost value? Inflation went crazy? Gas prices up?
/r/MensRights11/05/23 04:25 PM
76

No, hoping for every two hours.
/r/MensRights11/05/23 12:21 PM
3

That’s hate speech!! A girl can spread her legs without consequences if she wants to! What gives you the right to pretend that consequences are real?! Consequences should not be real and you know it! You’re a Troglodyte, a Neanderthal, a right-wing Cro-Magnon Man with an authoritarian streak, toxically masculine with sweaty balls. I just can’t even with you people, you make me wanna 🤮. (I think I literally, not figuratively, got this response pastiche from several of the whamen over at Feminism …
/r/MensRights10/05/23 06:49 PM
12

You’re doomed if that’s the way your fake “democratic” form of government is going to go.
/r/MensRights09/05/23 09:17 PM
6

What the hell?
/r/MensRights09/05/23 08:06 PM
11

BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutations are carried on chromosome 17 and 13 respectively (can be transmitted by both mom and/or dad) and such mutations increase the risk of several cancers (plural) for both men and women. The “women most affected” line applies here, men with BRCA 2 mutations are at risk for prostate, pancreatic, and breast cancers. So there could just as easily be a campaign that says “mom gave me prostate cancer”.
/r/MensRights09/05/23 10:40 AM
4

Well do you think that a man who did what Elizabeth Holmes did would be a sympathetic figure to the NYTs?
/r/MensRights08/05/23 10:56 AM
20

Lecturing men has gotten really old. Why don't women ever have to endure these public scoldings on how to treat men?
/r/MensRights06/05/23 11:54 AM
3

Good point about body shaming men, the double standards are obvious.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:26 AM
1

Tax rates are ridiculous. If you disincentivize work, you get less of it.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:20 AM
7

You paint with very broad brushstrokes. Your stereotypes are not completely correct. My conservatism is not misogynistic, nor is my dislike for all things “trans” related to a phobia. Let’s prescind from labels for a second. There has generally been in Western societies a double standard regarding depictions and exposure of male and female genitalia. We see statues of naked men, but almost none with depictions of female genitalia per se, even when the statues are “naked”. Feminists have complain…
/r/MensRights04/05/23 07:26 PM
13

Feminist sites kick people off at any hint of disagreement with a post there. Feminist echo chambers. Here you can disagree and not get kicked off, at least not as easily. The censorship on Reddit is oppressive, especially at feminist sites.
/r/MensRights01/05/23 09:55 AM
0

“Get an Uber”? What the hell? Get a freaking Maserati more like. Come on.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 08:58 PM
2

Most ppl think Crowder was being an azz. Who makes his wife take care of the dogs when she’s 8 mos pregnant? It’s nonsense, you’re nonsense. He can afford a fleet of cars, he’s a freak.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 04:31 PM
2

You don’t make a wife obey you like a dog. If that’s not clear to you, then you can’t be helped. I am a servant to my wife, and she is a servant to me. We don’t obey each other.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:57 PM
-1

Apparently you are a control freak too.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:50 PM
1

Disobedience lol? Come on. Good grief I’m a traditionalist to the max, but “obedient” to walking a dog and giving it medicine while pregnant? What?!
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:34 PM
-2

I think that his worst few minutes might be a bad way to judge him, but if you take what others have said about him, and then listen to how measured and controlled his pregnant wife was, compared to how he was, and the fact that he was quite irrationally demanding, and only has one freaking car despite his wealth, and he seems like a real dick. Twice she said “I love you”, and he didn’t reciprocate at all. He whined like a child that he couldn’t go anywhere while she went shopping for food or so…
/r/MensRights30/04/23 02:11 PM
6

Thanks. Not sure why you’re getting any negative reactions, but Reddit can be a toxic place lol. Hang in there and thanks.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 10:22 PM
0

Fail. If I put it up to pee, I’m not putting it down. There’s a good chance that the next person wants it up; or down. Move your own seat. Women don’t get special privileges, sorry.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 06:42 PM
1

Wait. If there is no lid, but only a seat, it’s logical for men to lift it so they don’t pee on it. When they are finished, they leave it up. Women can lower it. That way each party has to move the damn thing one time, fair is fair.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 06:35 PM
1

Maybe not.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 11:59 AM
5

I live in a house. In my house all my toilets have lids. At places of business in my locale, most toilets do not. If they do not, I’m not going to put the damn seat down after I urinate. Women don’t put the the damn seat up after they urinate, so I’m not putting the damn seat down. Now are you quite finished? You’re repeating yourself but nobody here agrees with you, that should be your first clue that, generally speaking, we think that public toilets don’t have lids, just as in the photo append…
/r/MensRights29/04/23 11:09 AM
14

See the photo? No lid. That’s typical.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 12:30 AM
16

The photo attached to this article shows a lid-less toilet. A toilet sans lid. I don’t know if that is the toilet in question. If your contention is that the seat should be closed if a lid is present, that’s a reasonable argument to make. In my experience most toilets in public do not have them. Their hinges break easily and cost more $ to maintain. The lady who wrote the article is crazy, she’s not the toilet police, and should mind her own business.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 11:30 PM
24

Ok, but public toilets generally don’t have lids, so your argument is moot. Invalid. Not germane.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 11:13 PM
64

Insane level of entitlement. Who decides that seat down is the default position? Why are women privileged in that regard? At work, I told the women that men have as much right to leave it up as they have to leave it down. The rule should be to leave it however the hell you wanna leave it, just don’t make a mess.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 09:45 PM
2

It’s all horseshit. Women have been sold a bill of goods convincing them that they will be happier having careers than having babies and raising them. Life is short. You only have a brief time on this earth. You can serve your career, serve your husband, serve your wife, serve your children, serve your ego, serve God, serve the State, serve your employees or employer, but you will serve something or somebody, just as Bob Dylan said. What you choose to serve determines who you are. Feminism prete…
/r/MensRights28/04/23 04:24 PM
13

Men will always be simps because “vagina”. Once you understand that, a lot of things become crystal clear. Competition between men, virtue signaling toward women, defending feminism, promoting women’s equality without upholding the same standards, allowing women to emasculate other men without defending other men, joking along with women about small dick energy, making derogatory comments about toxic masculinity, allowing women to invade men’s spaces without reciprocity, all of it is to ingratia…
/r/MensRights28/04/23 01:23 AM
1

Wait. Catholics are Christians. The Irish “troubles” are mostly over, and the British Protestants won the war. Northern Ireland belongs to Protestant Great Britain. The politics of that war transcended religion, it would be as if a predominantly Christian nation decided to annex Saudi Arabia. It would be called a religious war by critics, but in reality it would be a geopolitical war that divided along religion affiliations.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 12:35 AM
6

The Reddit feminist sites are toxic af. I can’t stand those people. The list of whining complaints never ends. And heaven forbid that you challenge their narrative of the day! Ruthless witches.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 03:21 PM
-1

Studies of adult males who get circumcised show high rates of acceptance, and very very low rates of change in sexual enjoyment. I’m sorry that fact bothers you. I want it to bother me too, I want to be a victim, I want to be unhappy. I really want all those things. I just can’t do it.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 12:18 AM
-2

Studies prove otherwise. I know that this crowd doesn’t like studies, you have your crazy narrative that’s impervious to facts. Just like the feminist crazies.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 12:16 AM
-3

That’s not true. There is no way to remove the clitoral hood and not affect sexual functioning.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 09:12 PM
-4

I’m pretty sure that you’re painting with a very broad brush, but you do like to exaggerate things in your very fevered mind.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:43 PM
3

Catholics do not practice circumcision as a ritual in any way, shape, or form. They choose it or not independently of religious reasons. Apparently you know nothing about the debates of the early Christian community on circumcision, Saint Paul decided that it’s not a part of the religion and not necessary for Christians, and that argument was adopted by general consensus of the new Gentile communities, who did not want circumcision. Catholic Europeans generally do not circumcise their infants.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:32 PM
-3

Able to achieve erection and ejaculate and have pleasure in the activity of ejaculating. Circumcised men have done this routinely and consistently for centuries. Define “mutilation”.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:06 PM
-1

No, I am saying that “female genital mutilation” is a useful and accurate term for what is done to female infants in some countries, including removal of the clitoral hood or any surgical intervention to close the labia. There is almost no surgery that you can do to a clitoris that removes tissue that is not mutilating in its effects, short of very small biopsy. I am saying that “circumcision” is an accurate and useful term for what is generally done to male neonates, the removal of the foreskin…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:04 PM
-2

It’s claiming that there should be no distinction in terms. So I won’t fuck off.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:58 PM
-1

Read the fucking title of the fucking original post. Read the use of the fucking “MGM” abbreviation as the term for male circumcision. I won’t fuck off.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:57 PM
-2

Studies don’t agree with that, but you’re welcome to believe that if you want. Circumcised males are quite fully sexually functional. Females who undergo what’s called “female circumcision” are not fully sexually functional.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:44 PM
1

There are objective sensitivity tests and subjective response reports. Men circumcised as adults in Africa noted no difference in sensitivity. I doubt very much that thinking that HIV prevention was part of the the null hypothesis would alter a man’s subjective pleasure in having sex, but if you want to make the claim that such men had some psychosomatic non alteration of sexual pleasure, I can’t prove you wrong, but it’s a strange idea. I’d be pretty pissed off if my dick was suddenly less sens…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:28 PM
-1

Fair enough, thanks. I saw enough studies about sensitivity to conclude that it makes no difference. There were good studies of that of men circumcised as adults who saw no difference. I appreciate your measured and rational response, thank you.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:36 PM
-8

Ok, maybe so, but FGM and male circumcision are not equivalent at all.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:34 PM
-1

Ok, but don’t equate it to FGM. Do you understand the plain meaning of words? You’re unhinged. Get hinged.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:33 PM
-8

Um, er, ok, look at the title of the OP. I guess plain language is not your forte. I guess using phrases like MGM and FGM are not creating equivalencies. I guess up is down in your world. Get your semicircular canals balanced.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:34 PM
-8

Your first paragraph makes sense. Your second starts with a tendentious word, “male genital mutilation”. It’s not mutilation, circumcised men have very functional penises, that claim by the anti circumcision crowd is the one that has been “debunked” from centuries of experience. As for the health benefits being “debunked”, both sides of the debate have studies that “debunk” each other. On balance, I’d say that the health benefits, if any, are minor and not a good reason to have a general cultura…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:31 PM
-5

The anti-circ crowd is very emotional about this issue, it’s a shared victimhood complex that is equal to the craziest of crazy feminists. It’s scary how activists create echo chambers of crazy ideas. But one man’s crazy is another man’s religion I suppose, only God knows truth from fiction in the final analysis.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:42 PM
0

Yeah I guess I’m talking about in America, my fault lol, I forget how international this site is.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:25 PM
-20

Wait. I did not say that FGM is not bad. I said, male circumcision is not equally bad. That’s my point and it’s not even close.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:24 PM
-1

I really don’t know why people do it, it’s obviously cultural and aesthetic for most people, and not religious. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that women are the main drivers of the practice, and that it is for aesthetic reasons. That seems to be something that could change rather quickly in society through changing norms; if most boys are not circumcised, then the minority circumcised will likely feel “odd” or out of place and the practice will diminish. People generally follow the crowd.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 02:47 PM
-41

Male circumcision is not at all an equivalent to female version. Don’t try to equate them.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 02:31 PM
1

This is interesting. Saint Joan of Arc was accused of dressing like a man, that came up at her trial. She denied that she had any interest in dressing like a man except insofar as needed to go into battle. Sexual dimorphism behavior is as old as time, and our psychological need to maintain some sexual dimorphism boundaries is inherent and can’t be waved away as a relic of our past. It’s vital to our biology. Feminists pretended that invading male spaces was just fine; but reverse the roles, and …
/r/MensRights23/04/23 03:00 PM
1

If you truly have a traumatic hydrocele and varicocele, then you might need end up needing surgery, and she will be liable if you pursue it with an attorney. I would also consider suing the sheriff’s dept. I would pursue it if you need surgery. The hydrocele could resolve; the varicocele could have existed prior to the trauma. Ask your urologist what he/she thinks.
/r/MensRights23/04/23 02:10 PM
1

Men compete with each other, women do as well, but in politics women are united. The sisterhood is real. Many men in politics are simps who wanna get laid.
/r/MensRights23/04/23 09:58 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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