TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

zpgnbg Archive

View 0 posts and 149 comments by zpgnbg 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)
7

Could just identify out of being male for a bit. I doubt a landlord would want to discriminate...
/r/MensRights06/09/21 09:40 AM
1

Antisemitism, his links with Iran, the IRA and other terrorists, his attitude to women, etc.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 11:06 PM
1

He doesn’t. He supports the elite, who are about the only ones that can afford his policies.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 11:05 PM
1

I hope it all ends in tears for Corbyn, he’s such a weak, dishonest and calamitous leader.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 09:25 AM
1

I don’t think that people would stomach a Corbyn government. He peaked during the 2017 election where he was mostly a protest vote, and after all the revelations about him has only lost support - losing election after election.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 09:20 AM
0

How did they steal her pension? That is ridiculous and I don’t believe that for a second.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 09:18 AM
1

The big deal is that people should get to make an informed choice about irreversible and unnecessary procedures being performed on their bodies.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 08:48 AM
1

That’s why I said the benefits are negligible- some studies show a slightly lower risk of rare infections, others - including the one I linked to - show that foreskin protects against an equal amounts of infections.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 08:45 AM
8

I didn’t compare the procedures directly - I compared the element of choice. Regardless of what the effects are the practices are identical when it comes to the absence of choice, and that is the main point of my argument. There are multiple protective properties which protect against damage to the head of the penis. The head of the penis is technically an internal organ, analogous to the clit and labia (which are protected by a female equivalent to foreskin). It contains most of the erogenous t…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 09:52 AM
8

No, we’re not talking about flaps of skin, we’re talking about a useful part of a sexual organ that has multiple sexual and protective functions. I’m not saying that either is better, and it’s great that you’re fine with it - my argument is based on the fact that there should be an element of choice. This isn’t anything to do with feminism - it’s a men’s rights issue because feminists have successfully outlawed similar procedures for girls, and many feminists don’t see the double standards when …
/r/MensRights08/05/19 09:10 AM
6

Good for you, but the fact is you’d be happy if you weren’t and you’ve lost the ability to choose what to do with your own body.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 08:48 AM
7

That’s fine - but the issue here is that it should be the person’s choice to do it or not. Female preference really isn’t a good reason to cut bits of your/other people’s body off either...
/r/MensRights08/05/19 08:44 AM
3

It's interesting to note that it's common for feminists to be transphobic. Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel are all anti-trans.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 10:47 AM
1

I also have done that. Hopefully it gets reviewed by someone who is able to comprehend that the FB groups directly violate FB's community standards.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 08:09 AM
8

This is from Facebook's community standards statement: "we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition." They are disgustingly hypocritical.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:15 PM
2

This is from Facebook's community standards statement: "we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition." They are disgustingly hypocritical.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:14 AM
10

Wow, the article totally misses the point of the Intactivist movement.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 03:04 PM
1

His one source was a random medical website, mine were peer reviewed scientific papers published in respected medical journals.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:10 PM
2

That doesn't answer my question.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 12:40 PM
1

So, OP, which did they choose?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:45 AM
2

You can't say that though. What if he's the 1/476 that suffers an immediate complication such as infection, what if he's one of the 117 baby boys in the US who will die because of circumcision this year? What if his circumcision leads to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation? You never answered my question about your religion. I can guarantee you that your religion offers alternatives to the procedure, if it is even required by your religion at all. 1 in 6 Jewish men refuses to circumci…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:28 AM
2

I agree with your comment about the foreskin serving a function, but I'd like to point out that all mammals have foreskins of some kind!
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:22 AM
4

It is rare for any anesthetic to be used during circumcisions.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:20 AM
3

You probably would never have had to be circumcised if you had been left intact.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:19 AM
2

That's denial. What man wouldn't want a better penis?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 02:40 AM
5

Fat woman forcefully kissing and stripping a young teen boy, most likely a stranger, to his boxers on public transport.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:33 PM
1

Hence why I've always held the opinion that Filipinos are not the cleverest of people!
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:06 PM
1

Yup, I saw that video too, that's pretty much common place there. I think it may be a few decades before even slight signs of change begin to take root. Also, it's interesting to note that people will also be made fun of for being circumcised too young.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:40 PM
2

You have to realise it's a very poor country with a circumcision rate of over 90%. It is also very religious and education there isn't that great. On top of this, the doctors there for some inexplicable reason (possibly money) recommend the surgery. There is no real movement against it there and nobody really questions it. It's appalling.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:18 PM
2

Yup. You would have thought so. According to my Filipino friends it is a common belief in the Philippines that masturbation with foreskin cannot produce semen. They also believe that you will begin properly orgasm the first time you masturbate after being circumcised. On another note, the fact that S. Koreans circumcise at age 18 (thanks to the US invasion) is making circumcision rates there drop dramatically (down 40% in 20 years) due to information and people experiencing sex and masturbation …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:43 PM
1

Then why is it recommended by doctors? Regardless of whether juice helps, cranberry pills do help rid the body of UTIs, and - as I said - UTIs that do not pass of their own accord can be treated with antibiotics. On top of this, drinking any liquid will help flush out any infection from the urinary tract.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:37 PM
3

Thanks for the response, I'm very happy to know that you intend to discuss it with your sons. I think that your post is probably the best in the comments section because you approach the subject with respectable objectivity and don't sugar-coat anything nor exaggerate. I also admire the fact that you admit that you might have made a mistake, it is very refreshing in a comments section of polarised and adamant people (myself included). It's very likely that this post was brigaded as there are oth…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:33 PM
4

They can say no, but they will be ignored, ridiculed, harassed, beaten and probably forced into it if they do. It happened to a friend of mine. Yes, they get told that they won't grow, that they can't orgasm with foreskin; but the most ridiculous thing about it is that they say it is a requirement of the Catholic faith. If they ever bothered to read the new testament they would see that it clearly prohibits circumcision.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:51 PM
3

Of course Why did you write it then? How so? Because it is. Mutilating your child is far removed form letting them go outside. I don't think that's considered the third world. I never said it was. I said the practice is contained to the US and third world countries. The majority of first world, civilised countries do not practice it. Doesn't seem like most people think it's barbaric. This does not mean that it isn't barbaric.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:46 PM
5

The reason people use harsh words such as 'mutilation' is to link circumcision to negative attributes. If people called it "surgery" it seems like it has medical benefit and is a valid practice, but 'mutilation' really gets the point across and makes people think about what non-medical circumcision is bluntly: cutting off normal, healthy, sensitive tissue for no real reason. With circumcised men 5 times more likely to cut their children than intact men, it is imperative that the point that circu…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:31 AM
3

I doubt the foreskin has constricted the growth, as the foreskin is the natural default so the head size attributed to intact men is the normal size. Also, the foreskin is a large piece of tissue approx. 15"2 so it shouldn't be underestimated when considering this issue. If circumcision produces a mushroom head, it is probably due to damage caused during the procedure. Cutting off too much skin will make the skin tighter and may pull the head into a mushroom-like shape. Also, the damage caused b…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:24 AM
3

You shouldn't have the same feeling at the scar as on the shaft, you should have more feeling there. You probably wouldn't need to wash your dick any more thoroughly than you do now.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:00 AM
1

I think having the NHS do it is probably better than having it done by some untrained religious nut, but I think that the taxpayer should not pay for a cosmetic surgery of this kind. The thing is, because Muslims and Jews believe it to be part of their faiths I highly doubt they will change their minds on the issue and will cut their children at all costs.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:54 AM
4

So, still a decade between the time you went to school and the time your son will go to school. My proof is in my comment. That's probably around the same thinking as never going outside because of the risk of cancer. That's ridiculous. I took him outside when it wasn't his choice. That's a false equivalent. Then why ma'am did hee sleep through the entire thing? Did you witness this? If you did, he was probably in shock. I believe you are thinking worldwide. yes. You made a generalisation about …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:51 AM
5

So you are saying that you were not circed, but now are so that you know both sides? I have never speculated about that at all. why does that matter You are the one who said that you being circumcised gives you authority on the matter. It doesn't. When I went to high school there was only one guy that people knew was uncut. This was decades ago. Now, it is an even split between cut and intact. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it will happen to your son. "the hood." Anecdotal evidence…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:52 AM
9

That is when the foreskin is supposed to retract. As long as he doesn't just yank it back (which he won't if you tell him that it'll damage his dick) and just gently tugs at it now and then, nature will take its course and he will be able to fully retract with a natural foreskin. Cutting it off because you do not trust your son to take care of it properly is insulting to men. And as someone who is circed I can say that there really isn't anything wrong with feeling and sensation. No you can't, a…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:16 AM
7

Yes, this is the only time I've been downvoted for saying: I hope you tell your sons you regret circumcising them so that they know it's an option to keep their children intact! And all the comments that say "Men are supposed to experience pain 'cus it makes them manly" 1. EDIT: I just realised that this comment was sarcastic. I've also noted that I've been getting lots of downvotes that are unequal to the upvotes of anyone opposing my position.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:09 AM
1

All penises look different. I'm presuming that the 'ridged band' cushioning the base of the glans when an intact man is erect and his foreskin retracted would make it look like his glans was smaller.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:05 AM
5

Either they are lying or you are lying.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:02 AM
2

80% of all men are intact.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:01 AM
–

It's worth noting that the NHS will not perform circumcisions for no reason as they are only used as a last resort for medical conditions. On top of this, UTIs are cured by drinking cranberry juice, or - at most - antibiotics. Recent studies have found that circumcision is not a worthy preventative measure against HIV. Condoms are. Also, the image you linked is unsourced and from a notoriously pro-circumcision website.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:53 AM
4

HIV The three studies that found a link between HIV and circumcision have come under a lot of attack throughout the medical and scientific community. Not only were they selectively biased, but at least one of the studies was stopped prematurely which skewed the results. On top of this, African studies are not relevant to the first world - where more recent studies are finding that there is no difference between the risk of catching HIV with either circumcision status. In fact, a UK study of gay …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:49 AM
5

You're taking a tiny bit of the paragraph out of context. Later in the study it is found that: "lack of circumcision is not a risk factor for HIV in the general population of a developed country".
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:44 AM
–

Your comment is typical of those ignorant as to the functions of a foreskin and has proved that you do not understand the implications. First of all, circumcision is not more hygienic and does not provide adequate protection against infections. In fact, the foreskin is fused to the glans for the first years of life, so cleaning a circumcised penis at this stage is a lot harder than cleaning an intact one, which only needs to be wiped as if it were a finger. Secondly, it is not "a little skin". I…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:38 AM
8

I did not say "female circumcision", I said "an equivalent surgery" for example trimming the clitoral hood. There is no way that you can say that my comment does not compare equals.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:31 AM
9

HIV The three studies that found a link between HIV and circumcision have come under a lot of attack throughout the medical and scientific community. Not only were they selectively biased, but at least one of the studies was stopped prematurely which skewed the results. On top of this, African studies are not relevant to the first world - where more recent studies are finding that there is no difference between the risk of catching HIV with either circumcision status. In fact, a UK study of gay …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:22 AM
3

Usually that is the case.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:50 AM
7

Not to everyone.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:50 AM
8

This study find circumcision affects the ability to feel pain and the pain threshold of circumcised children.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:57 AM
10

idiots Seriously? I am very informed on this subject and have done a lot of research on it. If I am an idiot, you're downright retarded. You choose your path and ill choose mine. Let your son choose his own path.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:51 AM
12

In fact, the area where the foreskin used to be, is the most sensitive are on my penis. Now imagine that you had a 15"<sup>2</sup> piece of skin with the same sensitivity... But seriously, the loss of sexual function due to circumcision does not affect procreation. It does, however, affect how the penis works. Take, for example, the gliding motion of the foreskin that aids sex and masturbation. Cut men don't have this. That is normal sexual function. Please don't compare people genuinely concern…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:48 AM
8

Circumcision is not normal at all.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:43 AM
7

Yes, it totally belongs here and is thought provoking and has started a debate. Unfortunately it consists of some very pro-cutting people that seem to just be very vocal and very uninformed. I think you have a very good position on the subject. People shouldn't feel bad that they were cut, but that does not make cutting acceptable. At all. You did good, OP!
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:42 AM
7

Because you're saying you were glad, but not understanding the implications of what you're saying. Also, people who are circumcised are more likely to cut their children, which is not cool.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:38 AM
13

1) No it hasn't. In fact, the chances of complication (1/476) are higher than the chances of needing the foreskin removed later in life. 2) They are lying. It takes no more time to clean an intact penis. No soap is needed (it is advised that a rinse with warm water is used). ON TOP OF THIS, fresh circumcision wounds take a hell of a lot more effort to keep clean than foreskin as foreskin is fused to the glans for the first years of life and is non-retractable. The only care it needs at this poin…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:37 AM
12

It's not at all. In the formative years of early life it is very easy to traumatise a child.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:30 AM
12

Because they're naive and inexperienced? Just under half of all male children born in the last few years are intact, with some states inc. Cali having a circumcision rate of about 15%. It is no longer a cultural norm.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:26 AM
22

Please explain to me how routine infant circumcision is not relevant to men's rights? Female genitals are protected from an equivalent surgery and American culture is heavily biased against how male genitals naturally look. This is definitely a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:20 AM
–

Some men find this a very 'sensitive' issue. Pun intended. These men are usually in denial and do not realise how important an issue circumcision is to men's rights.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:19 AM
8

foreskin cult fanatics You do realise that foreskin is natural and that circumcision is more of the cult practice?! Tomorrow I should get mad because my mom decided to buy kudos snack bars instead of nutrigrain For fucks sake. You're linking the choice to get rid of healthy, sensitive tissue permanently - depriving a man of normal sexual function - to buying snack bars?! You're a disgrace to this subreddit.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:17 AM
–

I will see to it that my newborn son will be circumcised in the coming months. That is perverted. Why would you rid him of genital integrity and natural, normal sexual function? Absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:11 AM
17

Who the fuck are you to even make that claim that he went through serious amounts of trauma? He was circumcised. Watch a circumcision. It is clearly traumatic for the infant.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:08 AM
3

How do you think other studies, including the AAp one were done? Also, to dismiss my argument just because you have a problem with once source is pathetic.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:07 AM
2

NO. In fact I am rather confused as to how you could even manage to get that assumption from my comment. I am comparing attitudes to male and female circumcision amongst cultures that practice it. You will find the reasoning is remarkable similar.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:02 AM
3

This is the dumbest post ive seen on this subreddit. Ditto.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:00 AM
–

I dont remember pain Not relevant. You still went through serious mounts of trauma due to the surgery, the effects of which are unknown. dont try to tell me what is best for my own body. I'm not. Im glad im circumcised Some women are glad they were circumcised too. Less maintenance, and ive seen info in many places saying that its healthier to be circumcised That's all bullshit.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:55 AM
3

Holy fuck. You do realised the one (and only) source used for that statement is from the AAP and is one of the most widely criticised studies on infant circumcision ever performed? I have no idea even how that shit gets put on Wikipedia. Here are some sources that prove it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(05)65098-7/abstract http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/1367.short http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/#n1 http://onli…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:52 AM
–

It's not healthy at all. Yes you did feel pain.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:40 AM
6

The brain adapts. You've said this twice. It has proved nothing both times.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:31 AM
5

No, evidence that sensitivity is lost is actually pretty conclusive. too many internet virgin warriors You have no idea about the demographics of the intactivist movement. make all sorts of unscientific and unsourced claims. All intactivists I have ever come across on reddit have been able to back up their claims. You, on the other hand, haven't.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:23 AM
15

But you probably wouldn't have to have it done as an adult. Hence why 80% of men are not circumcised.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:21 AM
6

Have you seen a circumcision? It is, undeniably, torture. Hell, it was invented to stop men having sexual pleasure and popularised in the US as a cure for masturbation! I am glad its not there. That is called denial. If you had a foreskin you would be saying the exact opposite. It just reminds how much we resemble animals. Animals usually have internal sheaths, not foreskin. On top of this WE ARE ANIMALS.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:20 AM
7

You do realise that none of that is an issue with you being intact; it is an issue with society. You must realise that, in hindsight, they did a good thing.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:16 AM
9

Your dick isn't fucked up. What is fucked up is what was allowed to happen to it.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:11 AM
8

Because people shouldn't be "glad" unless it was done for a legitimate reason. This is what it sounds like to intact people.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:10 AM
–

First of all, I am glad that you are happy with how your body is and, circumcised or not, everyone needs to like their own bodies. Secondly, there isn't much evidence against the fact circumcision reduces sensitivity. Take, for example, the fact that a circumcised man's glans is in constant contact with his underwear - if an intact man were to retract his foreskin and walk around with hi glans touching his underwear he would be extremely uncomfortable. This is because the foreskin protects the g…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:09 AM
10

In the Philippines boys between the ages of 8-14 are lied to, told that circumcision is necessary to becoming a man and told that foreskin is weird and disgusting. Those boys usually make the decision to be circumcised. I don't think a "boy" should be able to make the decision at all. I don't think hospitals should be doing the operation for non-medical reasons.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:04 AM
10

I hope you explain this to your children so they know that keeping their children intact is an option!
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:00 AM
1

To me it sounds no different to manufactured music. Its production is bland and whist its guitar is technically precise, it is precise in the way that a drum machine is precise. Now you're talking about the songs overall meaning rather than just the guitar sound. There is nothing in the guitar playing that says "trapped inside your own body" or "best friend being in a coma". Take for example the guitar in Iggy Pop's I'm Bored, it directly mirrors the feeling of the song by producing a repetitive…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:20 AM
1

Having a different opinion to you does not equal trolling.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:14 AM
0

First one All of them: God no, it just feels like listening to a manufactured, bleached pop act. Like a Taylor Swift song with faster guitars.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 11:57 PM
1

What is then?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 11:15 PM
-2

glorify those knobs who play 4 chords on an acoustic guitar The thing is, the 'knobs' may not be technically proficient but they can play those four chords with feeling. I am yet to hear a heavy metal guitarist play anything that invokes in me any emotion other than annoyance. Edit: It's been 3 hours and nobody has even attempted to prove me wrong. Why not?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:59 AM
1

anesthesia is used that guess what makes it so they can't feel it. In less than 50% of cases this is true. We're not talking about surgery in third world counties we're talking about surgery in a very nice first world hospital. Still, 117 boys per year die from the surgery in the US alone. On top of this, other first world countries do not practice the surgery as routine and many only use it in a worst-case scenario. In fact, it's banned in several European countries. Circumcision along with vac…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:34 AM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1hh45m/what_is_your_best_i_am_not_a_smart_person_story/caubsaq Here are some quotes: "I just found out I'm circumcised. I'm 17." "my friend used to brag he was uncircumcised because he thought that was when you cut the head of your dick off... he was circumcised" "when my boyfriend casually said something about him being uncircumcised I got really intense and argued that he wasn’t." "I didn't even know circumcision existed till I was at least that old, …
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:13 PM
0

Let me find the thread.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:05 PM
4

The fact is that the foreskin is a very sensitive piece of tissue and circumcision removes 15"2 of specialised nerve endings. The frenulum, often cited as the most sensitive part of the penis, is often removed during circumcision. When an intact penis is erect and the skin is retracted, the foreskin forms a ridge under the glans which cushions it thus reducing friction and allowing moisture to stay in the receiving partner. This also creates stimulation (think of it as like a ribbed condom, but …
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:02 PM
1

All skin is "keratinized". This may be the case, but the build up of layers of skin due to friction can (albeit temporarily) desensitise the glans or any other tissue it happens to. For example, I am a guitarist and the fingertips on my left hand have hard skin on them due to playing the guitar. If I were to stop, the skin would return to normal. Likewise, the constant friction of clothes on the glans builds up layers of skin and desensitises it. On top of this, without the foreskin providing pr…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:57 PM
5

the glans rapidly (weeks to months) adjusts to being exposed. It adjusts through the hardening of the skin (keratinisation), which drastically reduces sensitivity. the foreskin doesn't serve a purpose sexually other than lubrication. It serves a sexual purpose, which I have discussed in a previous reply to one of your comments. The nervous sensation lost should be repaired by reinnervation after the wound has healed. This is not accurate at all. A fully erect normal penis (except for cases of ph…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:12 PM
1

There are many, many studies that show the opposite of the one you keep citing; for example this one. The fact is that the foreskin is a very sensitive piece of tissue and circumcision removes 15"2 of specialised nerve endings. The frenulum, often cited as the most sensitive part of the penis, is often removed during circumcision. As for your statement about the "millimetres of skin", when erect and the skin is retracted the foreskin forms a ridge under the glans which cushions is thus reducing …
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:05 PM
3

How is this bullshit? It is a very important men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 12:53 PM
3

You shouldn't be glad that they did it at all. You shouldn't hate your parents for it, but you should realise that circumcision violated your genital integrity and you have lost a large portion of sexual function from it. You will never be able to feel sex as nature intended it to be.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 12:44 PM
1

an easier method to accomplish said something Circumcision isn't an easier method at all, it's a risky surgery and certainly more dangerous and time-consuming than the milliseconds longer that an intact penis takes to clean. On top of this, fresh circumcision wounds are prone to infections and take a hell of a lot more cleaning and upkeep than intact penises. I am sure that if you compared the time it takes to care for a circumcised man's penis throughout his lifetime and an intact man's, you wo…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 12:38 PM
3

Chopping skin off doesn't make it easier to clean though, it gets rid of the skin. There is a large difference between the two!
/r/MensRights15/07/13 11:09 AM
5

Saying it's easier to clean implies it's hard to clean in the first place, this is why it's bullshit!
/r/MensRights15/07/13 10:53 AM
10

No, its medically better to be circumcised. Bullshit. Easier to clean too Bullshit. I would rather have it cut as a baby than now The chances are that you would never need a circumcision, so this is a very flawed argument.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:22 AM
0

Ahh, I keep forgetting that laws vary depending on where you are! haha It's definitely a civil (not criminal) offence where I am as I studied law in college!
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:31 PM
-5

Trespassing is a civil offence, not a criminal offense. You cannot be charged with it or prosecuted because of it. The most that can happen is a restraining order could be filed. Edit: my mistake, I was thinking of my own country's law. "the only cases in England when trespassing is considered a criminal offence is when there is statutory enactment also present such as a combination of trespassing and forcible entry, or being on dangerous ground such as railway properties."
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:04 PM
3

I have to agree With whom? The majority of people commenting realise this is a men's rights issue. The feminist is attacking trans-women because she believes them to be men pretending to be women and claims that the reason she was thrown out of the club was misogyny.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:51 AM
11

The article (and incident) have literally nothing to do with men's issues in any way whatsoever. The person the article is about is refusing to accept trans-womens gender identity because they are 'men'. She finds males dressing as females to be offensive to feminism. On top of this, she was removed from the club because her presence upset people and she claimed 'misogyny'. How is this not a MR issue?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:05 AM
2

You're simply delusional. Pot. Kettle. Black.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:59 PM
2

Can your dick laugh? Is that a side effect of circumcision?
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:56 PM
1

couldn't care less about it You do care otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to comment.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:50 PM
2

They cut the fucking clit OFF. In less than 10% of the cases, yes. However the majority of circumcised women have their clitoral hood removed only, which is the same as male circumcision. With male circumcision, they remove some skin around the dick when the baby is a newborn. The majority of male circumcisions are performed on boys between the ages of 8-13. Just because America may do it when the children are young doesn't make that then norm. Until then, you're acting like a delusional retard.…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:43 PM
3

And which country would that be?
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:32 PM
5

That is absolutely ridiculous. Why should I be envious of what is inferior? haha
/r/MensRights07/06/13 04:47 PM
6

To me, it appears that you have deep regret and resentment that you will never experience normal or natural sex. It is usually the victims of circumcision that are the most vocal supporters as they are jealous that other men have vastly superior genitals to them.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:17 PM
2

You are gonna need to explain why the hell you would subject any newly born child to a torturous and unnecessary act otherwise you're gonna look as stupid as you appear.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:15 PM
3

It is a rite of passage. Only for Muslims and Jews.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:13 PM
3

Infants are not aborted, fetuses are.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:12 PM
5

Which is why you remain ignorant, which is clearly shown through your comments here.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:11 PM
3

a piece of my dick that is unsightly to me. I think that the majority of people find scarring more unsightly than foreskin. And it's not just a piece of your dick, it is the most sensitive part of your dick, containing 20000 observable nerve endings - which is far more than the clitoris (albeit less densely packed) my son's will look like mine. That is the worst and most disgustingly foul reason to rob your potential children of genital integrity. Who says your child will like the decision you a…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:09 PM
3

That redditor is crazy. Has anyone else found their subreddit devoted entirely to pictures of their own poop yet? (No, I'm not joking)
/r/MensRights26/05/13 12:48 AM
2

I think that a slight bit of rage cannot be avoided when talking about circumcision. It is ridiculous and unnecessary, after all.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:38 PM
1

When my mum was a director in a multinational transport company she, as a rule, never employed women in her office. According to her, this is directly due to them being protected by maternity leave laws.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 01:04 AM
1

Perfect example of misleading... I would argue that you are misleading people. I'm talking about all circumcisions. It is a medical statistic that in the US, a country where the practice is thought of as a simple and well practiced procedure, over 100 babies die from complications each year. There are zero professional records saying that male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure I did not say that cutting reduces sexual pleasure, as sexual pleasure is subjective. That said, there are thousands …
/r/MensRights27/04/13 03:34 PM
1

mu·ti·late (mytl-t) To deprive of a limb or an essential part. To disfigure by damaging irreparably. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. Circumcision is, by definition, mutilation.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 01:08 PM
1

Good for you. But if you think that you can chop off parts of children because you 'like being circumcised' we have a problem.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 01:05 PM
1

You should have brought it up!
/r/MensRights27/04/13 01:02 PM
1

It is a very harmful surgery that causes over 100 US infant deaths per year. It can increase the risk of erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation and a plethora of mental problems, not to mention the phenominal loss of sensitivity that it causes. It also has negative affects for the relieving partner during sex: the absence of foreskin makes the skin less movable and removes the cushioning effect, which can cause immense soreness and discomfort. The point is; if you want to cut a part off of …
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:37 PM
5

It's not actually safer for women. The increased friction due to the lack of movement in the skin and the lack of the cushioning ridge foreskin provides can irritate the inside of the vagina and cause considerable damage. Circumcised penis can pull out the natural lubrication and cause soreness, and due to the lessened sensitivity cut men often have to thrust harder which obviously causes damage.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:11 PM
11

Even for phimosis it should be done as a last resort. Steroid cream and stretching has a very high success rate.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:03 PM
39

The Metro is an absolutely abysmal paper. The only reason it's free is the fact that if they charged it would be classed as theft.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 11:33 AM
2

I will forward that on to her asap!
/r/MensRights20/01/13 11:44 PM
3

I now have a favourite thing to do whilst walking behind people at night! I'll talk in a north-English accent too!
/r/MensRights20/01/13 07:47 PM
0

Well, I have justified my use of it in a mature way without resulting to insulting people (unlike those who pointed it out) and only a few people have even brought it up, so I would beg to differ with your opinion and conclude that it really has no effect on the relevance or maturity of the statement or the poster :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 07:44 PM
1

It's implying that the comment is meant to be taken lightheartedly, just in case people think it's serious :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 06:28 PM
0

Haha, how is it even possible to confirm that through the inclusion of two characters at the end of a sentence? I'm studying English Language at University, I have writing skills. I just doubt that some people will understand the emotional implications of the writing without emoticons. And also, this is the internet; not an academic essay. If I want to use emoticons I am free to do so :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 04:17 PM
0

Actually, it doesn't look bad! Certainly not bad enough to warrant being called "retarded"! It's not really a measure of intellect to not put emoticons is it? I find they are useful to imply humour or sarcasm - things that are hard to portray via the internet.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:48 PM
1

But... but... how will I express my emotions? D:
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:18 PM
3

I promise this will be my only one :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:22 PM
3

Haha, thanks! Here's a bit of context: the girl in the post has also been to court for assault and battery against a man. Whilst drunk, she smashed a pint glass into a guy's face at a bar; however the judge let her off because it was "self defense". The only self defense that I saw that night was the man telling her he did not want to have sex with her.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:21 PM
2

It's crazy that she accused you like that, but it's even crazier that a man has to go to such lengths to not look like a criminal!
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:19 PM
2

It's crazy, when men are criminalised as muggers or rapists just because they're walking down the street.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:16 PM
2

Hi, thanks for sticking up for me :) the girl in the post has been to court for assault and battery against a man: whilst drunk, she smashed a pint glass into a guy's face at a bar; however the judge let her off because it was "self defense". The only self defense that I saw that night was the man telling her he did not want to have sex with her.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:14 PM
2

Ahh, I missed out context :( sorry.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:12 PM
5

It's not only this, but the girl in the post has also been to court for assault and battery against a man. Whilst drunk, she smashed a pint glass into a guy's face at a bar; however the judge let her off because it was "self defense". The only self defense that I saw that night was the man telling her he did not want to have sex with her. :) I would have put this in the post, but then no one would have read it as it would be too wordy :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:09 PM
2

In that case, rape should be a compliment to them! :L
/r/MensRights20/01/13 12:56 PM
5

My point exactly, thank you :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:36 AM
10

So what if some people want to take a break from serious subjects and enjoy some related humour? It all goes towards the same cause - exposing sexism, so it can't be such a bad thing! You have no evidence that it didn't happen, and all I can give you is my word that it did.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:35 AM
8

Keep cool :) I only posted it as it's slightly amusing and somewhat sexist. What do you think never happened? The supposed "rapist", the letter, or the conversation? :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:22 AM
6

Ahh, don't worry, I ended the conversation there out of disbelief :)
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:19 AM
211

Next comment: "I presume black men, like the rest of us, have taste" :P
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:15 AM
25

Feminist logic: all men are rapists, but feels unattractive if nobody wants to rape her. :P
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:11 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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