TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

my-alt Archive

View 0 posts and 88 comments by my-alt 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

Breast cancer is certainly overfunded compared to other cancers and that is ultimately down to the efforts of breast cancer charities who have drawn a lot of attention to it. However, having said that there are some differences with prostate cancer- firstly, the number of deaths aren't quite the same, looking up the numbers I got 41,150 female deaths from breast cancer and 27,244 male deaths from prostate cancer per year. So that's 50% more deaths from breast cancer. Males can also get breast ca…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 10:07 PM
1

Your point would be more valid if the gov spent about as much on things that helped women and girls as it did on men and boys. But the fact is the gov spends a lot more money on things for women and girls Where do you get that impression though, because I don't think it's actually true. To take an obvious example, the government spends a phenomenal amount of money on HIV which is a disease that primarily affects men.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 11:07 PM
1

68% survival means 32% die. 93% means 7% die. 32% dying is 4.5x the amount of people as 7%. That is indeed "very different" in any reasonable analysis.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 10:50 PM
1

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Almost+all+cervical+cancer+is+caused+by+HPV Take your pick. Cervical cancer: The most common HPV cancer. Almost all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. www.cdc.gov/hpv/cancer.html Cervical cancer: Virtually all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV, and just two HPV types, 16 and 18, are responsible for about 70 percent of all cases www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-fact-sheet I was wrong about penile cancer, actually, only 35-63% of…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 09:27 AM
1

Look, at the end of the day HPV causes significantly more harm to women than men, and that is why it is recommended for one but not the other. Almost all cervical and penile cancers are caused by HPV so it is absolutely relevant to point out that one is much more common than the other. You are just trying to muddy the waters, that it causes more harm to women is not in any scientific dispute.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 09:07 AM
1

Again, cervical cancer kills over ten times as many women as penile cancer does men. You can't just take something that is ten times worse and say "it's the same", it's not. Almost all cervical cancer is caused by HPV, it's not true what you and others are saying that most of it has other causes. The CDC estimates that 80 million Americans have HPV at any one time. As in, 80 million have a current, ongoing HPV infection. Of those, there are about 1,820 cases of penile cancer each year, it is inc…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 08:23 AM
2

They fund it for girls because it actually benefits them significantly. The most common HPV related cancer is cervical cancer which men can't get. The most common male HPV related cancer is HPV related throat cancer but it is about half as common as cervical cancer and kills about five times less of those that do get it. Male-specific HPV cancers are under ten times as common as female specific ones. Do you think it would be reasonable for feminists to demand that an equal amount of money was sp…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:58 AM
1

Which is an extremely rare complication that occurs only in maybe 1 in every 10,000 infections. It's also highly treatable, next to nobody dies from it, you might notice Michael Douglas fully recovered.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:48 AM
1

Genital warts are treatable, you know, they can be removed like any other wart. There isn't anything special about them other than the location, warts on your fingers or anywhere else are also caused by HPV just the same. At the end of the day they are purely cosmetic, can be removed, and cause absolutely no complications, so it is in no way worth spending billions of dollars to prevent what is an entirely benign condition. I don't have any genital warts, incidentally, and never have, although I…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:33 AM
3

If a man contracts HPV, he's going to have to tell potential partners that. No, he's not. And you know why he's not? Because there is absolutely no way for a man to know in the first place if he has high risk HPV, there is no test for men, only women. So how exactly would he be obliged to tell potential partners if he can't know if he has the virus? The vaccine is available for men if you want to pay for it yourself. The decision that has to be made is whether to fund it for men out of public fu…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:26 AM
3

I'm being downvoted because Reddit has an absolute circlejerk that all vaccination is good absolutely all the time, regardless of the cost, while this sub has a huge circlejerk that men are being discriminated against just for the sake of it. There's absolutely no point bringing up any science here, any of the countless studies showing routine HPV vaccination for men isn't worth it, it's just blind "vaccination = good" and "if women get it so should men" disregarding completely the actual costs …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:42 AM
3

HPV-related throat cancer is highly survivable, it's one of the least serious cancers there is. It has a 93% survival rate among non-smokers, while cervical cancer has only a 68% survival rate. So if you are looking at people who actually die from this, many many more women die from cervical cancer than men from HPV-related throat cancer. And that's despite high levels of screening for cervical cancer vs much lower for throat, one is just far more serious than the other. Anal cancer occurs at a …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:36 AM
2

The cost-benefit ratio of the vaccine to women is far lower, well under half that of vaccinating all men. routine HPV vaccination of 12 year old girls was consistently less than $50 000 per QALY gained compared with screening alone. Including preadolescent boys in a routine vaccination programme for preadolescent girls resulted in higher costs and benefits and generally had cost effectiveness ratios that exceeded $100 000 per QALY www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3884 It ultimately comes down to the…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:29 AM
2

Sure, and scientists actually add all this up when deciding what represents value for money using the concept of quality adjusted life years, and HPV vaccination for men is absolutely nowhere near worth it, it costs up to $450,000 per QALY for men in the worst cases, over $100,000 in the best cases while for women the cost is more like $14,000.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:20 AM
2

How is vaccinating men not a benefit to women? Most people are straight. Straight men have sex with women. It's equally beneficial to vaccinate men as it is women. A woman can't get HPV from someone who doesn't have it. If mosquitos caused HPV, then your point is valid. There is a benefit but it is absolutely tiny- studies have been done on the benefit to women of vaccinating men and it was found to be thirty times less effective than vaccinating women. HIV prevention is a separate issue. The he…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:14 AM
2

I'd lay money that I've sucked more dicks than you have. Some homophobe I am there. I'd support giving it to MSM, incidentally, as they are a high risk group, although anal cancers are far rarer than cervical cancer (10x less in males than cervical cancer in females) and even then are suffered far more frequently (1.5x-2x) by women. This is UK policy, girls and MSM get it free. The cost effectiveness of giving it to all men for the purposes of herd immunity has been studied, it was found to be t…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:39 PM
3

It's not "sexist" any more than spending more money on HIV prevention efforts for gay men than gay women is sexist. It's common sense, men and women simply aren't identical in terms of their health risks and it doesn't make sense to treat them like they are.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:07 PM
3

On herd immunity- here's a study that looked at the cost/benefit of vaccinating women vs vaccinating women and men. It estimated the cost per QALY of a female-only vaccination programme at $14,583 against $442,039 for one that also vaccinated men: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328990/ That's 30 times less effective to vaccinate men. A common cut off point per QALY is $50,000, so on the herd immunity argument that isn't anywhere near making financial sense.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:01 PM
2

What does that even mean? The source I quoted above looked at a wide variety of different assumptions and scenarios and in every case the benefit to vaccinating men was far lower and in almost no case could it be justified economically.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 08:57 PM
1

HPV accounts for 10% of those incidences, the other 90% of women that had cervyx cancer developed it regardless of HPV That is completely wrong. HPV infection is a well-established cause of cervical cancer. HPV is present in nearly all cervical cancers. HPV-16 and HPV-18 cause about 70% of cervical cancers. Other high-risk HPVs also cause cervical cancer, including HPV types 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58 and 59. http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/what-is-a-risk-factor/vir…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:58 PM
2

It's also worth considering survival rates, HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer is one of the least fatal cancers, with 93% of non-smokers surviving, while cervical cancer has only a 68% survival rate. So taking your incidence figures, if we hypothesise that all the women's cancers are cervical and all the men oropharyngeal (which they're not, but for a back of the envelope calculation it will do) you would expect 6,592 women to die but only 882 men. So not quite a tenfold difference, but not that …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 06:30 PM
2

Public health resource allocation has to be done on a cost-benefit basis and the benefit to men is simply much lower than the benefit to women, to the point it simply isn't worth it. Let me pose you a question- do you think public health authorities should spend more money on HIV prevention campaigns targeted at gay men or lesbians, or spend the same on each?
/r/MensRights17/09/15 06:08 PM
1

You may not be aware of the campaigns since they are targeting women. It's not just that, just Google it, you can find countless HIV campaigns targeting gay men in seconds, but not any targeting women. It's very obvious. You especially wouldn't find HIV campaigns targeting gay women, why would you given that there has only been ONE recorded case of lesbian transmission in all of history.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 05:20 PM
2

I don't think it makes economic sense to vaccinate everybody, and that is the general scientific consensus on it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815582 Reddit just has a general hard on for vaccinations, irrespective of whether they actually have a benefit or not, while this sub has a hard on for anything that might remotely seem like discrimination against men even if it is actually scientifically justified. That's exactly how it is done in the UK, incidentally, the NHS pays for it for wo…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 05:14 PM
1

Well all I can say is that it's different on the other side of the ocean, anywhere I've been in Europe or Asia STI clinics are either male-specific or deal with both genders, like I say the one I usually go to myself is for men only and I've never seen one that is women only. Examples: http://www.menonlytayside.com http://www.man2man.ie/services.html http://www.adamslove.org http://www.oogachaga.com/resources_lgbtq Obviously there are women's clinics that deal with stuff like abortion or Ob/Gyn …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 05:04 PM
2

most of the funding is multi-targeted Maybe in the US, indeed I have seen criticism of the US's HIV programme that it isn't more targeted. But in most places I'm aware of HIV campaigns are absolutely targeted more at gay men than the general population. I've seen countless campaigns, websites, advertisements, and services targeted specifically at men. I've never seen a single one targeted specifically at women.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:50 PM
3

Is a men only sexual health clinic not a similar enough case? There are STI clinics for men only and there are STI clinics for both genders. In most places I'm aware of there are NOT STI clinics for women only.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:37 PM
2

But there is more spent on men. I can go to a "men only" sexual health clinic which is just for men, where they will absolutely test me and let me see a doctor but they will NOT see a woman. There are no sexual health clinics at least where I am that only look after women. There are clinics that deal with both genders, and clinics that deal with only men.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:33 PM
0

The point is that it has a cost, quite a significant cost, and with anything that costs a lot of money you have to ask whether the benefits are worth it. And they're not, for most men.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:10 PM
2

I have honestly never seen anyone complaining that more money is spent on gay men than gay women in HIV prevention efforts, or demanding "gay women's sexual health clinics". Doesn't happen. This is an area where there are resources dedicated to men that are NOT provided to women, but nobody complains about it.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:07 PM
1

You are far less likely to get HPV related throat or neck cancer than a woman is to get cervical cancer, and if you do it is substantially less likely to kill you.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:20 PM
2

It would, yes. A good example is gay men's health clinics, that are specifically targeted at men. I get my STD testing done at one. Does it make sense to put disproportionate resources towards gay men when it comes to HIV and next to nothing towards gay women? Of course it does.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:18 PM
2

OK, thanks for that, I have corrected my statement. I was basing that off the gender specific cancers being over ten times higher in women. You might note that most HPV related throat cancer in men occurs with gay men, I would support vaccination for them but I still don't think it makes sense to vaccinate the entire population.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:26 PM
0

Still not worth spending billions to vaccinate against. If there was a vaccine for dandruff that would only cost $2bn/year to vaccinate the whole US population against it, would you recommend spending the money?
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:20 PM
1

I'm basing that off cervical cancer rates being over ten times higher than the male-only equivalent, penile cancer. The overall HPV-related cancer rate is about twice as high in women compared to men. Here's a source on it not being worth it for males: Given currently available information, including boys in an HPV vaccination programme generally exceeds conventional thresholds of good value for money, even under favourable conditions of vaccine protection and health benefits. www.bmj.com/conten…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:17 PM
2

The point is that the overwhelmingly most common HPV-related cancer, cervical cancer, men simply can't physically get. To compare, cervical cancer kills over 4,000 women in the US each year, while the equivalent male cancer, penile cancer, kills 310. It's an extremely expensive vaccine, and the benefits to men are absolutely minimal.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:52 PM
1

There comes a point where you have to look at the cost of preventing illnesses. The HPV vaccine is extremely expensive and protects only against a tiny, tiny subset of rare cancers in men.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:43 PM
0

The issue is that it is an extremely expensive vaccine, by far the most expensive of all routine childhood vaccinations. If the vaccine was cheap, it would make sense to just vaccinate everybody, but it's not, so you are arguing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (billions in the case of the US) vaccinating people where the benefit (protection against extremely rare cancers) is minimal.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:36 PM
-2

Is it unequal to deny men free hormonal birth control? Is it ethical to refuse to test men for cervical cancer? The HPV vaccine isn't quite as useless for men as these examples, but it's not far off either.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:28 PM
2

It's given to women because they are the gender that overwhelmingly suffers most from HPV-related cancers.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:25 PM
-4

You realise the vaccine isn't free, it costs a lot of money.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:23 PM
-1

The expense excuse is valid, it's a very expensive vaccine and it simply isn't worth giving it to men as it is of very limited benefit to them. HPV causes cancer in women at a rate almost twice that than it does in men, that's why women are prioritised. EDIT: corrected, twice, not ten times, but HPV-related throat cancer is approximately 4.5x less likely to kill you compared to cervical cancer, so in terms of outcomes we are not far off the 10x.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:22 PM
0

It's given to girls rather than boys as the benefits to women are substantially higher than the benefits to men. It simply doesn't make economic sense to give it to all boys routinely in childhood.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:20 PM
-2

The US and Australia are about the only two countries in the world that provide this vaccination to boys, which is a colossal waste of healthcare spending and the result of Merck spending millions of dollars lobbying governments.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:19 PM
-1

Which are harmless and not worth spending billions to vaccinate against.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:16 PM
-1

Which are incredibly rare cancers. Penile cancer kills about 310 men each year in the US, anal about 400. Cervical cancer kills over 4,000 women. Women have substantially higher rates of anal cancer than men, as well, incidentally.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:15 PM
1

If the vaccine was free or very cheap, sure. But it's not, it's extremely expensive. You have to weigh up the costs vs the benefit.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:09 PM
-1

It doesn't really matter if it's in the past, if you were promiscuous then you probably would have contracted HPV pretty quickly at that stage.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:07 PM
1

If you are as sexually active as you describe you have probably caught HPV already, so the vaccine would do nothing for you. That's why there's an age limit on it.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:56 PM
0

Well he's not far off, it's wrong to say it is completely harmless always in men but it is harmless in the vast majority of cases, yes. Basically everyone gets HPV at some stage of their lives but it almost never causes cancer in men.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:53 PM
-1

HPV can cause head neck and throat cancer in males. Which are rare compared with cervical cancer, most head and throat cancer is from smoking. The vaccine isn't free, it's by far the most expensive routine vaccination. It's 20 times more expensive than the flu vaccine, for example. Health systems have to look at the benefit when paying for a vaccine, and the benefit for men is minimal and simply not worth the extremely high cost of the vaccine. The benefit to women of preventing cervical cancer …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:51 PM
2

I'm saying that if a law is phrased so it could theoretically apply to herpes transmission but in practice has absolutely NEVER in the history of the United States actually been used to prosecute herpes transmission it is not effectively illegal. The US is a country of 320 million people where herpes has been passed from one person to another literally hundreds of millions of times but not a single person has ever been prosecuted over it.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 07:45 PM
1

There are also six other known human herpes viruses besides HSV 1 and 2, human herpesvirus 3-8, most of which are also lifelong infections and have considerably more serious complications. Infection rates with most of them are as high as 95-100%, >90% of people have 4, 5, 6 and 7, and almost everyone who wasn't vaccinated against 3 has that as well, I know I do, got it as a child, but no one seems bothered about them at all for some reason.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 07:21 PM
2

It's not sexual assault, I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted over it in the US, ever. If you were taking baseball bats to people, though, that would absolutely be prosecutable.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 07:10 PM
1

You got the straight white male transmission rate by comparing the straight black male and female transmission rates didn't you? There's that, yes, but the commonly accepted general transmission rates are also 1 in 1000-1250 and 1 in 2000-2500 respectively for unprotected vaginal sex if the other partner is infected. When you consider how people cheat on each other and the impact of bisexuals on cross group transmission the freaking out may not be unwarranted. Bisexuals don't affect your persona…
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 07:07 PM
3

Can you direct me to a single case where someone was criminally (not civilly) convicted of spreading herpes in the United States? The ONLY cases I'm aware of in the entire world are one (David Golding) from the UK and another of a soldier from Canada. Some states do indeed have laws against transmission of STDs. Most are limited to HIV but some talk about STDs in a more general sense that could theoretically include herpes. Note as well that this could theoretically also apply to transmitting HS…
/r/askTRP12/07/15 06:54 PM
1

Every case I'm aware of is a woman suing a man, yes, which is a bit ridiculous as obviously women give it to men as well.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 06:33 PM
1

People have been successfully sued for passing genital herpes, yes. Which is nuts given that I don't believe anyone has ever been sued for passing oral herpes, which is exactly the same thing, but there you go.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 06:31 PM
-1

What about cold sores, should they be disclosed? Exact same virus, herpes simplex 1 or 2. What about HPV which almost everyone gets but most don't know they have? What about human herpesvirus 6 and 7 which are lifelong infections that 95-100% of the entire world's population has that have a laundry list of complications far more severe than 1 and 2 but almost none of the people who have them know it? What about human herpesvirus 5 which infects >90% and is the most significant infectious cause o…
/r/askTRP12/07/15 05:52 PM
0

If someone is purposely spreading that shit, that's a sexual assault. It's not, at least not in the US. It's not a criminal matter at all, although people have been successfully sued over it.
/r/askTRP12/07/15 05:11 PM
1

Because they're gay and taking it up the butt, IV drug users or not using condoms. Around 500 people are struck by lightning each year in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike The figures for straight white males acquiring HIV each year are so low they aren't even published but given the figure for straight white females is 1300 and female-male transmission is about half as likely as male-female the figure is likely about 650. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.h…
/r/TheRedPill12/07/15 06:36 AM
1

At a risk of one in ten million, sure, yes, you have a significantly higher risk of being killed in a traffic accident or even struck by lightning, and I like sex. I do use condoms for vaginal or anal sex which is prudent.
/r/TheRedPill11/07/15 04:47 AM
1

STDs aren't some magical organisms that work fundamentally differently to "regular" diseases, the state of your immune system is about as relevant to whether you are going to catch one as it is to whether you are going to catch a cold. You can get an E.Coli infection in your throat from falling to wash your hands properly after going to the toilet and then eating a pizza. You can also get an E.Coli infection in your throat from having a penis stuck down your throat after anal sex. The bug doesn'…
/r/TheRedPill10/07/15 07:51 AM
1

You brought up syphilis in particular which very specifically hasn't evolved any resistance to penicillin. Antibiotic resistance in general applies to any bacterial infection, not just STDs. If your concern is antibiotic resistance in general I presume you never leave your house or interact with other people or eat meat or previously cooked rice, not just refrain from sticking your dick in things. People honestly freak out about STDs far more than is warranted. I imagine you are a teenager, when…
/r/TheRedPill10/07/15 05:15 AM
1

And do you freak out about oral HSV1 as much as you do genital HSV2? About a condition that up to 99% of the population has in some countries? And what about HPV, which is far far more closely linked to cervical cancer (which again, presuming you are a man, you can't get because you don't have a cervix)? Are you freaking out about that as well? I'm not claiming that herpes had absolutely no possible negative effects, but that they are so rare and minor as to be insignificant.
/r/TheRedPill09/07/15 06:03 AM
1

I'm not aware of there being a problem with antibiotic resistant syphilis. Syphilis to the best of my knowledge has been curable in 100% of cases, and in 99%+ with only a single injection to the butt. It's actually remarkable that penicillin is our oldest antibiotic and syphilis one of the oldest diseases treated by it, but it hasn't evolved resistance. It is ridiculous to compare a disease that is curable in 100% of cases by simple antibiotics to a disease that has infected tens of millions and…
/r/TheRedPill09/07/15 05:51 AM
1

Genital herpes is linked to cancer. So yes, medically it is justified to not want to have herpes. Are you a man? You know you can't get cervical cancer if so, right? In any case HPV is far far more closely linked to cervical cancer and if you have had sex more than a handful of times you have almost certainly got it, nearly EVERY sexually active person gets it at some point in their lives. Lots of things correlate with extremely minor increases in risk for something or other. Unless you are goin…
/r/TheRedPill09/07/15 05:35 AM
1

Ok. You've heard of penicillin?
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 07:20 PM
3

It's a worst case, but that is the figure for viral cultures of recurrent outbreaks. Viral culture is even less accurate during recurrences (positive in only about 30% of recurrent outbreaks). www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/herpes/herpes-testing/
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 07:14 PM
2

You can also get HSV1 genitally from a blow job, both varieties can infect either location.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:37 PM
1

Hep C is infinitely more serious than herpes but doesn't seem to be transmitted by heterosexual sex. Many don't think it is a STD in the first place and requires blood to blood contact.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:36 PM
1

You still don't know if u got the herpes. Not very likely to get it from protected sex with a woman. If he wore a condom but the outbreak is on the skin that wasn't covered by the condom it could well be herpes, a condom only protects the skin it covers.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:34 PM
1

Syphilis is curable. Hep C is even debated whether it is sexually transmitted at all and if it is it only seems to transfer between homosexual men and even then relatively rarely.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:31 PM
1

You don't want Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Chlamydia...man most of them are pretty bad. All are easily curable usually with a single injection in the butt.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:30 PM
1

Syphilis is an ulcerous STD spread by skin contact, they actually protect against gonorrhea and chlamydia better than they do syphilis.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:29 PM
7

Counterpoint is don't fuck girls that aren't clean. How do you know that exactly? You realize you are excluding maybe 70-80% of the whole US population?
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:26 PM
6

The herpes that is linked with dementia is oral herpes, or cold sores, which over 60% of Americans and up to 99% of Europeans have, depending on country. Herpes is a localised infection and genital herpes is simply too far away from your brain to pose a threat there. But despite oral herpes being linked to an increased risk of dementia people don't freak out over cold sores, but only genital herpes. It is complete social stigma with no medical justification whatsoever.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:19 PM
4

60% of Americans have oral herpes. That rises to over 90% in some parts of Europe. Almost everyone has it and most get it non sexually from relatives early in life.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:15 PM
6

You can't know. Herpes tests are remarkably unreliable, with up to a 70% false negative rate. I wouldn't stress about herpes though, it is utterly insignificant other than the social stigma.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:14 PM
1

Could just be psychological.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:10 PM
11

Herpes tests are notoriously unreliable. The false negative rate on them can be as high as 70% which is unbelievably high. As in, up to 70% of people who DO have herpes will test negative for it.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:09 PM
6

Herpes isn't standard on a "complete STD check up". Most people have it, at the end of the day.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:04 PM
2

It's the same with a lot of STDs, it is easier for women to get them from men than men from women. HIV transmission risk is double from male to female than the other way around. Lesbians, conversely, have extremely low STD rates. Dicks and male fluids are the main STD transmitters; stuff tends to hang around in the vagina after sex in a way it doesn't on the penis.
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 12:02 PM
7

HIV is also much more serious but has much lower prevalence and is MUCH harder to transmit, particularly female to male, even if you don't use condoms. If you do use a condom your chances of getting HIV from sex with a random white woman in the US is one in something like ten million. Your chances of getting herpes is significantly higher than that. But it's also an insignificant disease that amounts to no more than a mild skin rash for most people, if even that (the symptoms tend to go away wit…
/r/TheRedPill08/07/15 11:58 AM
16

I think this is the key point. His "rape" was as a consequence of his commitment to not to react to anything during his "performance art" exhibit. So he sits there, committed to non reaction as it happens, and does absolutely nothing to stop it. Calling that "rape" IS offensive to rape victims frankly. I get the impression he is leveraging this for the sake of notoriety. He was in no way raped in any conventional sense.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 03:17 PM
1

isn't the high number of single mothers caused by the welfare system? No, that's a right wing myth. There are higher rates of single mothers in many developing countries with limited or non-existent welfare- the highest rates in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, not developed countries with generous welfare systems.
/r/askTRP25/07/14 01:23 PM
2

The best estimate is 80% effective at preventing HIV, but that is from actual use in the real world, including breakages, people putting them on incorrectly and so on; it is suspected if you actually use them correctly and consistently every time they may be even higher, possibly even as high as 98% if used 100% consistently and correctly every time. I have only once had a condom break in 20 years of using them, and that was anal sex with a condom that was too small. If you get the right size an…
/r/askTRP25/07/14 01:08 PM
1

For some people it's a fetish, and a harmless one. It's not one I have myself, although I did once almost end up in the position of the third party (I bang the girlfriend while boyfriend watches) which is good for me as I do like having sex in front of other people. Never actually went through with it though. So while it's not something I share I can understand the bit in caps about him being a rush from it. There is also research that shows that pornography showing two men with one woman improv…
/r/TheRedPill31/07/13 04:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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