TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

oliverofolives Archive

View 2 posts and 28 comments by oliverofolives 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)
151

Intactivismoliverofolives/r/MensRights24/02/26 02:55 PM
61

Intactivismoliverofolives/r/MensRights27/02/26 01:13 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

That also applies to parents that engage in the harmful and illegal practice of FGM. They, too, believe that they are doing what is in the best interest of their child. Intent hasn't ever made better a practice. Routine infant male circumcision is not 'bad' or unethical because it's non-consensual, it's the opposite. It's 'bad' and so it has to be consensual. The definition of 'bad' here is the irreversible loss of healthy, functional, and non-keratinized lubricated genital mucosa. That does not…
/r/MensRights14/03/26 03:17 PM
1

Shouldn't have ever been needed in the first place and it's comical to see people cry about a hair cloth oppressing women while this happens to men all over the world and without their consent. That 'Yahweh' god only accepting men if they sacrifice a functional part of their genitals. Nasty. Man-hating. Oppressing.
/r/MensRights01/03/26 07:43 PM
2

It should be banned because it's harmful even if men that underwent it personally think/believe that they were not harmed. They are too busy worrying about size, but not the fact that a considerable portion of their penis was cut off. I don't think that's wise or reflective on the harmful nature of this practice.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:38 PM
6

You're very deluded and I am very sorry to say that, but the idea of making accessible to some what's inaccessible to most demonstrates that your position is not properly thought out. That's discriminatory and is much less realistic than a nationwide ban. You cannot just allow religious people do this while simultaneously disallowing all other social groups because to even allow it for religious groups communicates that it does not harm children and so why is it being made inaccessible to others…
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:32 PM
2

You say, 'who are aware of no personal downside', but when did they ever experience the alternative (i.e., actually having foreskin)?
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:24 PM
4

You say, 'mildly inconvenienced' and I ask how dry solo sexual activity is not inconvenient? You probably literally think that that is the way it should be, and I am telling you, no, that is not how it is for intact men. Start thinking please.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:22 PM
2

You say, 'it is not even CLOSE!' and yet I am telling you that there are forms of FGM that do not even involve tissue loss, but are considered significant harm, child abuse, and a violation of international human rights laws. Do you get that?
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:20 PM
2

What do you think clitoral hood reduction is? That, too, is a medical procedure that adult women can consent to.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 07:18 PM
2

Being capable of protecting yourself now becomes an excuse to violate.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 03:12 PM
2

You predicted the argument of one of the commenters here LOL
/r/MensRights28/02/26 03:06 PM
3

Your very misinformed reply does not even address my logical argument and, out of nowhere, mentions FGM. I ask that you instead explain how a 'no' to religious believers is more harmful than the objective, measurable, and non-consensual loss of a considerable amount of functional, sensitive, specialized, healthy, and erogenous genital tissue.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 03:05 PM
5

Also, that person fails to mention the fact that FGM is religiously sanctioned in the interpretations of some religious adherents. It's not just MGM that has religious motives and no, you cannot say 'it's not really part of x religion' because that's essentializing followers of a faith. Interpretations of religious doctrines vary.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 03:02 PM
2

These cases are not a 'small minority', and I come from such a religious/cultural background. Them having this 'right' is the object of criticism here. Muslims make up a significant percentage of the human population; they are not a minority. You say, 'the VAST MAJORITY of circumcisions are NOT performed for any religious reasons' and that is a lie. The vast majority of circumcisions globally are driven by religious factors. Also, about your critique of comparisons to FGM, you're being dishonest…
/r/MensRights28/02/26 02:53 PM
3

I just noticed another form of irony to this. They argue that the foreskin is not 'essential' and call it 'extra skin' yet it's so essential that the surface of the glans penis (the main male sexual organ) has to undergo change to carry out the lost protective function. It does so in a suboptimal way and at the cost of fine-touch sensation for the foreskin can be retracted, but the layers of keratin cannot be.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 12:12 PM
3

They tell people to never essentialize religious faiths, but then they do just that when they argue that FGM is not part of any religious faith, but MGM is.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 11:27 AM
7

That's the whole point. Their entire argument on hinges on convincing people that the tissue loss is not harmful, but telling them "no" is. It's pathetic.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 10:52 AM
1

I might misunderstand the term then due to its colloquial use. I am sorry.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 02:34 PM
3

Wait, what?
/r/MensRights24/02/26 11:47 PM
-2

I am not a feminist.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 08:26 PM
-10

I am sorry, but that sounds a lot like toxic masculinity.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 08:18 PM
1

What if I do not?
/r/MensRights24/02/26 08:07 PM
3

I agree.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 07:55 PM
20

Exactly and they excuse this by saying that male 'circumcision' genital cutting/mutilation has 'benefits'.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 07:37 PM
24

Yeah, that's exactly how these people think.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 07:36 PM
1

I think yes, but a big part of it being legal in a lot of places is 'religious freedom'. I mean, where is the religious freedom of the infant?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 09:59 PM
1

There are Muslims and Jews in the U.S. too and they would fight their asses off to retain the right to cut their innocent male infants. They think that that is religious freedom. I mean the infant is a human being and religious freedom is a human right. Where is the religious freedom of the infant as a human being that will be capable of making decisions for himself in the future?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 09:54 PM
1

The religiously brain-washed would open their filthy mouths and pretend that revoking their 'right' to cut the genitals of their male infants is discriminatory.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 07:34 PM
1

You put it so fucking beautifully there. That's exactly the issue. Their focus is always on the safety of the procedure, but what about the end goal itself?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/26 07:32 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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