TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

secondaccountforme Archive

View 0 posts and 128 comments by secondaccountforme 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

No, the comic focuses the blame on hypocrisy, That doesn't make sense. You can call something hypocritical, but you can't "blame" hypocrisy for something. it's women making the decision in the comic because it's women making the decision in reality. What makes you think it's "women making the decision in reality"? What I don't agree with is that it's all the fault of "white men" or that women bear no responsibility. Ok, And I never said either of those things so Idk why you're acting like I did.…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 03:24 AM
2

No one said that we should reduce the issue and focus blame solely on them. We should however hold them responsible and show them the hypocrisy of their ways, which is exactly what this cartoon is doing. Sure. But again. The problem with circumcision isn't women. This comic very clearly focuses the blame on women. Sure. Lots of women are indifferent and do it because their husband wants them too. Here you are again, refusing to hold women responsible. Your "If women do anything wrong it's becaus…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 02:49 AM
0

It is not reasonable to say that women aren't responsible for their own actions because of peer pressure or because "everyone is doing it" that is incredibly reductive, not to mention incredibly bigoted against Men and Boys. Where did I say they weren't responsible for their own actions? I said that it's not just women who are doing this so to reduce the issue and focus the blame solely on them isn't a good tactic. Many women do it for their "Own personal reasons" I.e. "It looks better" or "It's…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 02:19 AM
5

Most circumcision decisions are made by women. Source? I'd be surprised if this wasn't somehow misleading. Either skewed due to single mothers or not taking into consideration choices made by both parents together.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 01:43 AM
2

It's not deflective. It's a super reasonable critique. I'm pro-choice, but one of my least favorite things about the pro-choice movement is their framing of the issue as "a bunch of old men trying to control women's bodies/sexuality". The fact is that tons of men and women both genuinely think that it's wrong to kill a fetus. But they try to reduce the issue to men wanting to control women's bodies/sexuality. This comic is exactly the same thing. There are tons of parents, both mom's and dad's, …
/r/MensRights04/09/18 01:41 AM
1

I didn't say that. I never said anything remotely similar to that. I said "But how is that really important in this case where one decided to murder someone?" and you said "Why wouldn't it be important?". Clearly you said it was important. The definition of 'relevant' is "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand". His illegal immigration has a significant and demonstrable bearing on the crime, since if he had not illegally immigrated, the crime would not exist. Again, by…
/r/MensRights30/08/18 02:33 PM
1

You seemed to be putting forward the idea that hypothetical situations have no effect on the actions of people generally. I disagreed and stated why. Well how in this case did the hypothetical scenario you're putting forth affect his actions? You're saying "if he wasn't in the country he couldn't have committed the crime". How did that hypothetical scenario affect his decisions to commit murder exactly? the killer's decision to commit murder, No relation, other than that he had the opportunity t…
/r/MensRights30/08/18 05:00 AM
1

What if scenarios play a role in every decision we make. If the thought "what if I jump off this bridge" runs through your mind, you won't try it to see what happens, you'll think about what would have happened and realize that's a bad outcome, and then make a decision based on the what if scenario. So how exactly did the "what if" scenario you're putting forward influence this killers actions? Are you suggesting he thought about this same "what if" scenario and that somehow is what lead him to …
/r/MensRights29/08/18 10:17 PM
1

Because that's honestly even worse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 05:53 PM
1

Idk how I can be any more clear about the question. You're right that if we had some magically 100% effective anti-illegal immigration policy in the US, then he couldn't have killed her because he wouldn't have been here to begin with. But how is that relevant to the fact that he decided to kill someone? It's a "what if". How is a "what if" relevant to a decision that he actually made in real life?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 05:52 PM
0

But how is that relevant to the fact that they decided to kill someone?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 04:14 AM
1

How was their immigration status relevant to the fact that the decided to kill someone?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 04:09 AM
1

I can't tell if you're memeing or mean that seriously.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 04:06 AM
1

but we sure as hell don't have to open the flood gates for the MS13 and third world problems to flood in. So who said we should open the flood gates exactly?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:53 AM
1

Nobody said "we should allow illegals". We're saying "you shouldn't pretend like one illegal immigrant murdering someone is representative of a significant problem with illegal immigration."
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:51 AM
1

That's equally dumb. Again, how about you blame the murders for murder?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:49 AM
1

Saying it's "immigrants" is ignoring the rather important distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. But how is that really important in this case where one decided to murder someone?
/r/MensRights29/08/18 03:48 AM
1

I still don't find the argument that injustice and corruption are enough to abolish the death penalty as a permanent solution. Why do you think the death penalty is so important to have? What purpose does it serve? Do you think it's a better deterrent than life in prison?
/r/MensRights27/04/18 08:04 PM
2

Not only that, when he was in the process of asphyxiating himself, he had second thoughts, got out of the car, called her, and she told him to get back in.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 12:28 AM
7

isn’t it literally safer for preventing stds If you're worried about stds use a condom. Being cut is a very insignificant difference in risk.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 08:10 PM
7

Because it's fucked up in principle. If your religion required cutting off the tip of your kid's ear, it definitely wouldn't be legal despite being arguably less damaging than circumcision.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 08:08 PM
5

Actually I'm pretty sure that didn't even show up in the US. It was like Russia's men's day or something. Not even the same day as international men's day.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 10:33 PM
1

You have yet to address the fact that he literally justified his words in the first sentence. He's essentially saying that's what she deserves. Unless you can explain how his words could mean anything else, this is a stupid argument.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 04:16 AM
1

I agree, but this guy specifically said "knock out cold".
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:54 AM
1

It doesn't matter if you would do it equally to man, if you would knock someone out cold for spitting on you given no threat of further violence, that's a ridiculous overreaction. Honestly I do not think that hitting someone who spit on you is childish at all. It's just a human reaction. At a certain point words don't solve anything, and while violence doesn't really make anything better, there's something to be said for letting people hash things out themselves and having there be consequences …
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:53 AM
1

What do you even mean? He literally says he'd knock her out cold and justifies why he thinks that would be appropriate. What could I possibly be projecting?
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:49 AM
1

I agree, but I don't see this as being akin to a punch. She's clearly not trying to start a fight here. There are plenty of ways one could respond to this, even physically, without causing any harm to the person, so knocking them out cold is still an insane overreaction.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:47 AM
1

Yeah you're right, but it's doesn't warrant intentionally knocking someone unconscious.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:30 AM
1

I think you're forgetting that these things are illegal. You can always press charges. Or you can fucking yell at them, push them off you when it happens. There's plenty of shit you can do that will stop the situation and make them think twice about pulling some shit like that again, all while leaving them completely conscience.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:29 AM
1

No, the alternative is worse in terms of the specific qualities you mentioned. There's plenty of qualities I don't like about Hillary but there's no doubt there are some very good ones too.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:25 AM
1

Yeah I just don't think the answer is to knock them out.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:24 AM
1

Yeah I just don't think the answer is to knock them out.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 03:23 AM
1

Because he's the alternative.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 01:51 PM
1

Seeing as how he started the comment by justifying his hypothetically actions, I find that pretty unlikely.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 01:50 PM
1

Just because not everyone is civilized 100% of the time doesn't mean the answer is to stoop the their level and violently retaliate. If everyone did that, this whole civilization thing wouldn't even work.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 01:11 PM
0

Fine, that's fair. If you pull some shit like that because you're worked up in the moment, I can understand. But that's completely different that saying you would do it in a completely hypothetical scenario on the Internet, when you can actually think that shit through. If you would make the well-thought-out decision to act that way, it absolutely makes you a child.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 01:09 PM
1

"This guy said he would hit a woman the same as a man, obviously they just fantasize about having a situation to hit a woman." That's pretty far from what he said. He said if this chick spit on him and walked away he would knock her out cold. No matter who is doing the spitting, that's a childish overreaction.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:58 PM
-3

No of course they're a child. But you think stopping to their level and escalating the situation makes you mature?
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:56 PM
1

Yeah I did.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:55 PM
1

Yeah, you have every right to defend yourself. If you think knocking this chick unconscious is the necessary way to deal with that then you're delusional.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:55 PM
0

The the consequences are people thinking they're a fucking terrible person to be around. Or press assault charges if you want. If you're not in danger, why the fuck would you get violent?
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:53 PM
-1

Yeah, that's retarded. We live in a civilized society. When people do shit like this, it reflects badly on them. They get known as "that douche that spit beer on someone over nothing" or "that bitch who gets offended too easily and can't handle her liquor". That's how we handle it. If you punch someone for spitting beer on you, you get known as "that asshole who violently overreacts to tiny shit".
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:42 AM
-2

I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't "turning yourself into a bigger, more violent asshole".
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:21 AM
-6

If you would knock a dude out cold for spitting on you given no other threat of violence you're a fucking child.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:11 AM
-2

It's not the statement itself that's necessarily sexist here, but you don't have to be a genius to see this guy has a serious problem with women. First of all the whole "you wanna act like a man" shit is ridiculous. She's not acting like a man, she's acting like an infant. And most of all, it sounds like this guy just fantasizes about retaliating against women like this. If someone spit on me, regardless of who it is, punching them is a pretty enormous overreaction (and equally childish). I'll p…
/r/MensRights10/09/16 09:48 AM
-10

So fucked up that this is upvoted. I support men's rights but a lot of y'all really are just sexist pricks.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 09:18 AM
2

We're all salty about Bernie.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 09:15 AM
1

Trump can't even remember what he said in the last interview.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 09:14 AM
1

Ok, how much less do they earn
/r/MensRights22/04/16 12:20 AM
2

A lot of them have ink now that gets all over whoever pulls it.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 11:46 PM
6

She's sorry that people are actually holding her accountable for things she said against a group of people who she thought she could bash without consequence.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:41 AM
0

So do men.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:46 PM
10

Women are biologically not as strong as men This is on average. I'm an average guy, average height, maybe a little under average weight, but probably average strength, and there are tons of women who I would be terrified to get in a fight with. I don't know how to fight. I don't know how to defend myself against an attack. Just because I'm stronger than the average woman doesn't mean that I'm not going to get scared or freeze up if a woman attacks me. You can't expect everyone to just act in the…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:31 PM
0

Not all women are feminists. And beyond that, not all feminists are blind to injustices that men face.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:27 PM
2

That's bullshit. You can't blame women for "engineering" that place in society any more than you can blame men for "engineering a place in society where they can hold a place in the public eye without their appearance or body constantly being commented on". That's just not how it's works. Women and men both have privileges, and they both have areas where society expects unreasonable things of them or treats them unfairly. They didn't try to make society like that. One gender can't control a soci…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:26 PM
1

I'm not that ugly.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 05:14 PM
3

They'll do anything for sex. That's a big one.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 05:45 AM
2

Unless you're saying we live in some kind of statutory rape culture that's being secretly upheld by the matriarchy :p I mean that's what I'm saying in less ridiculous terms. People are way more likely to sympathize with a young, female teacher having sex with a student or sending him nudes or something than they are for a guy doing the same thing to a female student. Society sees guys' sexuality as predatory, even if it's a 16 year old. They see young girls as innocent. If a male teacher sent hi…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:40 AM
9

Literally everything bad is misogyny Calling someone a prude? Misogyny What gender was the person? Doesn't matter: still misogyny Sexually objectify someone? Misogyny What gender was the person? Doesn't matter: still misogyny Excluding trans people? Misogyny Wait isn't that called transphobia? No, some trans people are women, so if you exclude a trans person, you literally hate women Genderqueer/androgynous people often trend toward traditionally male styles? Misogyny What if they, you know, are…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:33 AM
3

The crimes I'm referring to rarely are considered "child molestation". I'm mostly talking about statutory rape, or even just general teacher-student sex when the student is of age. I've never heard a feminist, or even most non-feminists defend a male teacher with a female student, but I've heard them do it for female teachers plenty of times.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:15 AM
6

The difference I see is that that view point holds no weight in our society at all. Anyone who says that would be immediately discredited and would never be taken seriously, meanwhile there's a pretty large percentage of our society that would totally agree that a women having sex with male students isn't as bad as the reverse. That not only makes it reasonable to assume that far more such feminists exist, but also that even if a majority of feminists don't feel this way, the more vocal minorty …
/r/MensRights12/03/15 06:56 AM
8

I've heard plenty of feminists defend such situations.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:23 AM
2

Well feminism is going to solve some of those problems, but ignore a whole lot, and start a bunch more too. Just so you know.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:18 AM
3

How do you define "Patriarchal"? The meaning you seem to be using here makes many feminist ideas very patriarchal themselves.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:16 AM
1

Have you ever been to Japan? It's quite possible that there's just another sign next to it.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 05:52 AM
0

That doesn't make it relevant. More serial killers are men, but that doesn't make their victims issues any less important if they are men too.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 05:06 AM
1

Just clarifying for anyone who might have downvoted you that when you said Because it's an issue of "groping" which isn't really a crime. you meant that in the eyes of the Japanese government, right?
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:34 AM
1

Haha pretty much everywhere in the world that has any amount of tourism has lots of English signs.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:33 AM
2

Women can choose to use many forms of birth control. If they forget to take it, the condom breaks, etc. then I'm somewhat responsible, so I'll make it clear that I'm not going to be responsible for a kid. I'm more than willing to pay for their plan b. If they get pregnant and find out later by surprise, I'm more than happy to pay for their abortion and any related recovery costs. If they want to have the kid and put it up for adoption, or drop it off at a hospital, that's cool. If they want to r…
/r/PussyPass19/02/15 03:28 AM
4

Well most of them we're invented in a time that was still pretty sexist toward women.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 04:24 AM
1

Literally a picture of him on leg day.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 06:30 PM
1

Are you against teaching kids to look both ways before they cross the street? Because essentially you're teaching them to "not get hit by cars".
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:55 PM
1

It doesn't really matter if you think someone deserved to get punched, maybe they did, but that doesn't mean it's right for someone to go up and punch them.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 08:50 PM
3

Yeah, and the same way they can choose to put up a doodle for hitler's birthday if they want. They can do what they want, but they are a company in the public eye. They aren't protected from other people's reaction to their choices.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:33 AM
1

In the context of feminism, the patriarchy is essentially a word for everything that's somewhat ugly about society. It's a way to take all kinds of horrible things that happen to people of all genders, races, sexual orientations, etc. and find a way to blame them on men again. The wage 'gap'? Patriarchy. The fact that rape occurs? Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 05:03 PM
2

Does she still call herself a country star? I think it's just tabloids and stuff.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 04:57 PM
0

Circumcision cannot be avoided for some boys.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 06:21 AM
0

Well what I'm saying is that circumcision, piercings, tattoos, and braces are all forms of cosmetic procedures that are legal to preform on children in most states. They all have risks and side effects, and the child cannot consent. Where is the line between these.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 03:42 PM
0

Well do you consider piercings a form of surgery?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:43 PM
0

Yes, I am. I'm not in favor of circumcision at all, I'm just trying to make this a fair discussion. Over a hundred babies die a year from complications from male genital cutting. Many more suffer other complications. There is a risk. Here's the questions we have to ask;: Why are these deaths happening? How much could that number be reduced by by taking less drastic precautions than completely outlawing circumcision (only allowing it to be preformed in hospitals, changing the way we preform it, e…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 09:48 AM
0

I'm not trying to move the goalpost. I'm not even arguing against him saying it shouldn't be done on infants. If he wants to make a claim like that, he has to define where it ends. When is someone no longer an infant. If I'm comparing it to tattoos, piercings, an braces, is there an age at which all of them are ok, and below which none of them are? Or are the ages different for each, and if so, what makes them that way? I'm not trying to invalidate his point by moving any goalposts, I'm just try…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 09:43 AM
0

I'm actually uncircumcised myself. I don't think I'm overestimation the importance of the ear at all. And I don't think I'm underestimating the foreskin either. I'm just comparing the two. You can get it cut off at a later age if there are complications, but it's going to be much more of an inconvenience than if you got it at birth, and you also would have to suffer through the complication in the first place, where as if you were cut, there wouldn't be a risk of that. I'm not saying it justifie…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:14 AM
0

Well I'm assuming he's not in favor of circumcision of 3 year olds either. Or probably 5 year olds? Were do you draw the line?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:09 AM
1

That's true, but it usually still leave marks, and any tissue damage isn't really cured.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 06:58 AM
1

Some piercings can have similar or worse irreversible risks to that of circumcision. For example nipple piercing has been known to cause severe loss of sensitivity over time.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:55 AM
0

I think we all can agree that a vasectomy is much more serious of a procedure than the other things I mentioned.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:38 AM
-1

What? We're talking cosmetic procedures here. I don't really think vasectomy is related.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:26 AM
1

No you're correct, the other guy was just arguing about the wrong point.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:25 AM
1

Sure. But not having to risk having such a medical condition is clearly a benefit.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:23 AM
0

For anyone under 18, or where is that were you draw the line?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:21 AM
0

I mean compared to ears. If you cut off an infants ears, you can automatically name tons of ways it's going to defiantly impact his life in a negative way. While the foreskin has some important roles, when we compare it to ears, it's practically nothing. There are lots of people living without foreskins and having wonderful lives that are equally as great as those with foreskins, while most people out there without ears are automatically disadvantages compared to people with. Also, there are ple…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:20 AM
1

Yeah. It's human-centric. I don't see any problem with that. There are plenty of "natural" things that are totally fine to correct and plenty of "unnatural" things that are totally ok to do? What's your opinion on gay marriage?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:15 AM
1

So you're just talking infants then. Where's the age where it becomes ok?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:13 AM
-1

Well in this situation there's nothing I could really do. But if I had the keys in my hand when you told be that, I sure wouldn't hand them over.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:12 AM
-2

They couldn't do anything about it. If they could have and chose to not do so somehow, then yes.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 03:08 PM
1

I know exactly where it goes haha. I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 02:52 PM
-4

If this guy was federal agent who somehow stumbled upon information with clear details about the plan for 9/11 and could have prevented it, I agree. These kids new she was drunk, they still chose to give her the keys.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 02:06 PM
1

I'm sorry but there are plenty of reasons that are much better than this. This is literally the same kind of argument people make against gay marriage. "Nature" doesn't really mean much anymore, we need to make decisions based on what's best for our species on our own. "Nature" is far from being the best source.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 02:01 PM
-3

Where do you draw the line? Piercings? Tattoos? Braces?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:57 PM
0

Having your vagina cut up probably wouldn't help very much, so it's kinda unrelated.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:51 PM
1

I mean if you did cut them off, you wouldn't have to remember. Your ears are really important for your sense of hearing, so clearly it doesn't justify cutting them off, but when we're talking about foreskin the point is a lot more significant.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:50 PM
0

Even if it's cultural that doesn't make the point invalid. And also it's definitely easier and more comfortable to give head to a circumcised guy. That's a benefit.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:48 PM
0

How so?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:47 PM
0

Overstated? Yes. Exactly. But they still exist. When people argue by saying there aren't any, it's a lot less effective than your approach.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:46 PM
2

Because getting your appendix removed is much more invasive and risky than circumcision, especially when we're talking about babies. Not saying circumcision is ok, but that analogy doesn't really work.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:38 PM
1

Well not ever having to deal with the side effects of the issue that would necessitate it later is certainly a benefit in both cases. I'm not saying that alone justifies it. But it is a benefit.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:35 PM
2

Nah I think actually having to carry the baby makes it a little different, but if there was a relatively non-invasive way to get an egg fertilized and have a surrogate mother carry the child, then I think it would be closer.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 02:45 PM
1

If you speak English fluently and you don't consider that part of the definition correct, you are actively ignoring all the evidence you have that backs me up that you must have simply from being a fluent English speaker, therefore you're being ignorant.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 04:04 AM
1

As you can see, even if the person said "I do not have 'some' French fries" with added emphasis on some it does not mean I have a majority of French fries. Yeah it does. Especially if you say it like "I didn't just have some French fries."
/r/MensRights08/01/14 04:01 AM
1

That refers to none. Not a minority of a group of things.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:58 AM
1

Why don't you google it yourself. Make a post on /r/grammar or /r/linguistics. Seriously I've given you more than enough to go off of here and people clearly agree with me. I'm sorry that I'm too lazy to do it myself, I'm going to bed.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:41 PM
1

Using the word some to mean a minority is an incorrect use of the word as defined By you People use it that way all the time. You're ignorant if you don't consider it correct. Colloquially, No you're still wrong about that part too we may assume that a person is referring to a minority based on the circumstances surrounding the word use. Even then, it would be impossible to definitively say what amount of anything the speaker was referring to by using the word "some". We can only deduce that the…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:32 PM
1

No. You're wrong here. That's not just 'colloquial' it's very much part of the definition. "Some" means more or than one but not all, or any amount of a non-count noun. If referring to a count noun, you wouldn't use "some" to emphasize that there is more than one. You would instead you a word like "a few", "a lot", or "many". When you emphasize "some" the part of the definition you are emphasizing is the "but not all" part. When making a generalization about all men, or all women, or all humans,…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 05:48 PM
6

Some implies a minority when emphasized.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 05:17 PM
1

I would attribute this to the majority of people having some amount if same sex attraction. Growing up in an environment where this is seen as completely ok and normal, these people would probably be more open to the idea of it, regardless if if they ever actually would.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 07:33 AM
1

If I remember correctly I just got lots of "you just want to feel good about your body even though it's severely mutilated. There are no benefits, you just don't want to feel broken." It's just that both of those ideas can be applied to the other side too. But nobody ever dismisses happy uncut guys for they're anecdotal evidence.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 01:23 AM
1

I've definitely gotten hate here before for liking the fact that I'm circumcised. I'm not going to assume that my hypothetical son would get the same benefits out of it that I do (and yes, there are benefits), so I wouldn't circumcise him, but I still am glad that I was.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 12:35 AM
2

Urine is sterile in your bladder. It can pick up all kinda of things on its way out.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 12:31 AM
2

I could say the same about any variance Well, I think there's something to say for sexuality and gender identity being on the extreme side of this effect, which is also why they're harder for some people to accept.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:23 PM
1

Maybe I'm not being clear with what I mean. You can explain bisexuality as much as you want, but monosexual people aren't going to know what being bi is like. They can accept that what you say is how you feel, but their never going to understand what it's really like, just like I'm never going to be able to understand what's it's like to be only straight or gay. I accept that lots of people feel this way, but I can't truly understand what it's like.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:07 PM
1

What. I refuse to believe that's any more true of trans* people than any other minority. It's not. You know, they honestly said the same thing about black people once. I seriously think you're underestimating humanity here, and maybe overcompensating a little if you're trans* yourself. You sound like a hipster, or a spoiled teenager. See but that's what I'm getting at. Society grew to accept black people. I think society can also grow to accept trans* people. That doesn't mean that cis people wi…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:55 PM
1

Is it a cop out? Maybe. This guy didn't look like he wanted to here tons of explanation about what being trans means and why it happens. It's still true. Does it isolate trans* people from cis people? Not really, I mean not more than they already are by nature. Does it minimize their struggles? I don't really thing so. I'm just saying the the reason he doesn't understand is because he doesn't have to go through these struggles. It is a variation of the human condition, and it's one that this guy…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 03:38 PM
6

It's about identity and expression. Just leave it at that.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:19 PM
2

You don't understand because you aren't trans.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:18 PM
1

I agree with you on kink, but I'm bi, and I'm def in the same boat as gay people here. Just saying.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:16 PM
5

Top comment: Well I would buy one, and then leave it in the washroom at work. Then I would watch all the women in the office collectively lose their minds as they try to figure out which one of them is the one who's pregnant. Comedy Gold. Doesn't sound like anyone's getting fucked over.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:01 AM
8

Meh. I don't really have a problem with her selling them, but it is a problem if someone uses it to fuck someone over.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 10:55 PM
3

Trust me on this, you're missing out.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:06 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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