TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gryphonlord Archive

View 1 post and 42 comments by gryphonlord 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)
0

gryphonlord/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:03 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I don't like it, but it won't be removed from the Android Market, they allow everything without regulation. It's like pure capitalism up in that bitch
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:47 AM
3

Did you read what she actually said? She says she wasn't morally outraged at all. Her response was reasonable
/r/MensRights26/01/13 08:18 AM
1

Wait, why?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 10:00 PM
2

This isn't proven. You should wear a condom anyways. The WHO seems to think it's fact and they're pretty damn reliable. Totally agree with your second point though. However, they aren't infallible, STDs can make it through, albeit rarely, and they can break, so the extra level of protection is handy. Pleasure is subjective, some people derive pleasure from autoerotic asphyxiation. Personally speaking I find my own is very responsive to stimulus. I don't doubt that. Studies suggest you'd have the…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:07 AM
-1

To save myself time I'll link you to a previous post of mine Here
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:36 PM
1

Holy shit, the Pratchett they bring up is none other than Terry Pratchett's daughter!
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:08 PM
-4

Geez, I'm for circumcision, but this is just creepy and disgusting. Why would anyone ever make anything out of human body parts?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:32 PM
3

I don't think admiring his courage supports male disposability at all. A good way to test yourself on things like this is to think "Now how about if the genders were reversed?". Well if it was a girl protecting a male rape victim then I'd be just as impressed by her courage. It's easy to separate things based on male/female, but what we see here is just the goodness of humans.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:23 AM
2

I hope this is a wakeup call for that woman too. Her tone changes drastically from the first to the second and third, so I think she's realizing that she was in the wrong.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 10:12 PM
0

I'm not aware of every single type of FGM as there are a variety of different kinds, so I don't want to say 'yes' and then get berated by someone because that must mean I'm okay with variety 129 which is terrible and that means I'm terrible and everything is invalid because that is how reddit debates go. So I'm giving an example of FGM that I'm okay with to give you an idea of what I mean.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:19 AM
-1

The African trials only troubles were because of the ethical issues involved in having a control group. The data, however, is fine. And I cannot see how you think the data obtained in Africa is not applicable here. Sex works the same, penises are the same. M2M transmission has the same basic theory behind it as M2F transmission, except the likelihood is increased because the anus is prone to opening tiny cuts via anal intercourse, which gives HIV a much greater access into the body. Please thoug…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 10:09 AM
0

I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I said there, but I'm totally fine with removal of the clitoral hood.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 09:59 AM
-2

Like I said before though, any surgery has a slight risk of failure, I'd still trust doctors with my life though. A lot of life saving surgeries have chances of failure, but I still want them done because the net benefit exceeds the possible failures. Even if you doubt the AIDS statistic they are still facts. Also according to the NIH condoms reduce AIDS by 85% and HPV transmission to females by 70%. The WHO found a range of AIDS reduction from 80-95%. So it's not like condoms are perfect. They …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 02:07 AM
0

True, but in this case the argument of those guys is "They did it wrong" without any real citations. So it's them versus the WHO, and when it comes to credibility the WHO has proven themselves, so they win in a he said/she said situation like this
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:49 AM
-2

I have a citation somewhere down the line, I think it's in that giant post I wrote, please check there for my citation. Also that's anecdotal evidence. I have no doubt that sucks like nothing else. It's terrible. But there's a slight risk of failure with everything, nothing's 100%. Very few experience the kind of pain you speak of, the other 99.8% benefit.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:33 AM
-1

I do have actual support for my claims, see above. The WHO is a very renowned source and highly credible. I think they trump two guys who have an interest in disregarding evidence that doesn't support them.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:19 AM
0

Oh shit, you're right. I just reread the wikipedia article, looks like I misread that. Thank you for pointing this out. Also I'm aware of Type IV, but that covers a wide swath of various other practices, so it's difficult to address.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:15 AM
-1

I just looked up the removal of the clitoral hood, and I'm okay with it. I haven't gone into much research about it, but it seems to be harmless, and women who have had it or a hood reduction seem to be very happy with it, so that's good. And I understand that MGM refers to more severe practices as well, which is why I specify circumcision and not MGM. But most importantly, and this is the reason I replied in the first place, thank you for your understanding of my opinion. It's very rare to see …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:12 AM
-2

Type III accounts for 85% of all cases. But fine, I'll address the other two most common, Types I and II. Both of those involve the removal of the clitoris, the main source of sexual pleasure for females. The foreskin is not the main source of sexual pleasure for males. Research shows it has little to no effect. EDIT: My bad, I misread. Type III actually accounts for 15% of all cases while Types I and II account for 85%. I mixed the numbers up
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:01 AM
-2

If you actually look up the writers of that piece you'll see that they're both heavily biased and regarded as completely non-credible, even being compared to the infamous Andrew Wakefield
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:55 AM
-5

Circumcision on a baby results in a problem only .2% of the time. The majority of those problems are just slight bleeding or small infection, easily fixed with no permanent damage done. The WHO concluded that there is very little to no change in sexual pleasure between circumcised and non, and Johns Hopkins added that women actually felt no difference between partners circumcised and non, and a number actually liked circumcised better because of better hygiene. So please cite your sources, I wan…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:48 AM
-2

You are ignoring my argument entirely. I'm not saying babies are at any serious risk of STIs. I am saying that later on in life a circumcision is pretty damn useful. Especially since the argument that circumcision should wait until adulthood totally ignores the copious amounts of sex teenagers have. That's also a high risk time for STIs.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:44 AM
-5

Yes I know that. I was just making the comparison that they're both useless bits of the body that should be cut off. I'm not very good at comparisons
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:30 AM
-3

How about you give me a citation that's more credible than the goddamn World Health Organization and UNAIDs before continuing your argument. Here's a spoiler alert though: There isn't one
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:21 AM
-5

Because mutilation is described as being marred beyond recognition. FGM is basically sealing the vagina shut except for a small hole for urine and blood. Circumcision isn't anything like that.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:18 AM
-9

There is no evidence to support your claim that some of the best nerves are in the foreskin. The scientific consensus is that there is little to no change. The arguments for, however, are very persuasive, check out my other comment somewhere around here. Also if circumcision is 'genital mutilation' then the removal of the umbilical cord is 'chest mutilation'
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:16 AM
-2

Let's see what some studies found. The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively Well that's a pretty big percentage and although the study was done in underdeveloped nations (More available data on HIV transmission) reducing the transmission of an almost always fatal condition is pretty damn relevant to all parts of the world. These studies were even enough to convince the World Health Organization and UNAIDS that circumcis…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:13 AM
-3

I'll focus on Type III FGM because it's the most common. That involves fusing the vagina together except for a small hole for urine and blood that is then broken open via knife or forced penetration by the husband on the wedding night. The procedure also has a high chance of damage, urinary incontinence, obstetric fistula, and death. I'm not sure how you can even compare circumcision to that. EDIT: My bad, I misread. Type III accounts for 15% and Types I and II account for 85%. See below for a s…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:39 PM
-4

Circumcision is not permanent, it can be reversed Obviously babies are not at significant risk of STIs (Some can be passed from mother to child via birth, so it's not zero risk) but when they grow older they will be, might as well do the operation when they're too young to remember the pain. As for the claim that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive areas of the body? Yeah the World Health Organization says there's no proof of any sort that that's true, saying in 2007 "Although it has been …
/r/MensRights30/12/12 10:42 PM
-6

...That link doesn't prove your point at all. Says right there that they failed to find any statistically significant results connecting the circumcision to reduced risk and that confounding variables were involved. And for God's sake, there are so few cases of circumcision going wrong that it's completely irrelevant. Might as well ban plastic surgery since that has a slight chance of fucking you up. Hell any surgery at all has a slight chance of killing you, let's ban all of it. Also circumcisi…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 10:28 PM
-5

A poorly made argument, but I agree that anti-circumcision and pro-choice are opinions that contradict each other. Nothing wrong with circumcision folks, it even has a slight health benefit. It ain't "mutilation" any more than an ear piercing is.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:06 PM
1

Eh, it's just using an archetype to get its point across. The "Magic Mom" making everything perfect with the aid of whatever is being advertised is a pretty effective one. It does what it's meant to, that's the goal. I'd love to see the same thing done with a dad, but advertisers have less than a minute to get their point across, and when you have that little time you want to use established archetypes to do it quickly. I really don't expect the ads I see on TV to be progressive, they have a job…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:02 PM
1

Feel free, I'm flattered
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:23 PM
7

When you're a piece all you can do is maybe knock a few other pieces over, once you're a player you can flip the goddamn table
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:51 PM
1

I think we need to separate feminism and what now constitutes as 'feminism'. The old feminism was reasonable and egalitarian, the new one is just radical. It's an offense against the old, reasonable feminists to call this new brand by the same name
/r/MensRights05/12/12 07:18 AM
1

Huh, that's a nice quote, I like it. Your grandfather must have been a wise man. Anyway don't feel bad about it, it was probably just an exaggeration over something that exasperated her, like when you complain to someone 'you always argue with me' or something like that. Not true, but you say it anyway. Also keeping your job is kinda more important than being some 'hero'. Given the risk/reward of that decision I'd say chewing her out wouldn't make you a hero, but a moron.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:23 PM
7

With the ACA making it so that women no longer pay more for health insurance just because they're women isn't it also time that the cost for men become the same as for women with driver's insurance?
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:08 PM
1

I...I don't know what to say hugs
/r/MensRights21/11/12 01:46 PM
6

Why not just improve the lighting in the rest of the garage and install cameras?
/r/MensRights09/11/12 10:18 PM
13

Also worth noting that /r/SRSDiscussion, despite their claims, is not neutral at all and will ban you if you so much as advocate for a peace between SRS and MR...Yeah
/r/MensRights11/10/12 02:55 AM
2

I don't think Mens' Rights and Feminism are incompatible at all. For example a popular subject with Mens' Rights, it seems, is about child custody in divorce courts. The MRM feels that the court is heavily biased towards the mother, the MRM simply wants the courts to be unbiased. There are also a lot of discussions about double standards that the MRM just wants to end, not turn it against women. The way I think of it is the feminist movement brings women up to a place alongside men, equal pay, n…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:08 PM
13

...I can't find it either. And I think they banned me.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 06:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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