TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DuckHorseDuck Archive

View 3 posts and 177 comments by DuckHorseDuck on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

Definitely not. That would be an absolutely insane number of deaths. One study suggested 100 die a year in the US, which is probably what you're thinking of, although its methodology has been disputed. What we can say for sure is that babies do die from it, and that any number of deaths from a totally unnecessary, inherently harmful procedure performed without the consent of the recipient is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 07:58 AM
1

Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:1-4
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:24 PM
1

Frenuloplasty.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:18 PM
7

She did a more than just a ceremonial prick, but it definitely wasn't the whole chop everything off and sew it shut deal that people tend think of. From the criminal complaint, paragraphs 16 and 19: MN-V-1's labia minora has been altered or removed, and her clitoral hood is also abnormal in appearance. Finally, the doctor observed some scar tissue and small healing lacerations. [...]the doctor's preliminary findings are that MN-V-2's clitoral hood has a small incision, and there is a small tear …
/r/MensRights27/11/17 11:34 PM
1

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, the ridged band, and part or all of the frenulum. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin and walk around, the friction of his u…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:44 AM
1

Easier hygiene Cleaning a normal penis isn't fucking rocket surgery. Takes two seconds in the shower, tops. Decreased risk of urinary tract infections Girls are far more prone to UTIs than either intact or circumcised boys. We treat them with antibiotics just fine. Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Minimally. Condoms are hugely more effective, and you still have to wear them if you're circumcised. Prevention of penile problems. Phimosis is rare, and even when it does occur the v…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:40 AM
22

We really don't know if there are health benefits for female genital mutilation, because unlike male genital mutilation, we're not desperately seeking them out as an excuse to continue doing it. Instead, we seek out harm to stop it. It is certainly possible that benefits do exist. A couple of studies have shown a reduction in HIV among cut women. Vulvar cancer often originates in the labia, so removing them could provide a similar effect to the oft-touted penile cancer reduction for males. Clito…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:36 AM
16

Doctors are already providing much lower quality care- to boys with normal penises. America has a ridiculous rate of "medically necessary" circumcision because doctors simply don't know how to care for a foreskin. They actively cause foreskin problems and then don't know how to treat them besides just cutting it off. And if we're talking about children, the rate is far closer to 50/50 than 80/20.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:19 AM
2

Shockingly, it wasn't Jake Waskett.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 04:44 AM
4

This video gives a quick overview of different forms of FGM and how they compare to different forms of male genital mutilation. This essay goes more in depth.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 03:41 AM
1

Wouldn't be a circumcision article without uncritically citing "Doctor" Brian J. Morris, who not a medical doctor. What he is, however, is an advocate of mandatory circumcision and a circumcision fetishist, who likes the page circumsexual pride on facebook.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 09:04 PM
8

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, the ridged band, and part or all of the frenulum. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin and walk around, the friction of his u…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 08:46 PM
2

There is no religious consequence for the parents who do not circumcise, only the boy himself. It has no bearing on their practice of religion, only his. The parents don't have to live with either the religious or the medical consequences of circumcision, only the boy does. If he wants to do it later, he's welcome to it, but the function of government is to protect the rights of individuals, and it should be protecting boys, even, if need be, from their parents. A large number of Jews don't even…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 08:21 AM
1

There is no conflict. The right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not, especially when your actions are irreversibly harming another person.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:45 AM
1

So the right place to draw the line is that mutilating girls is a federal crime, but mutilating boys is government subsidized in half the country? That's ridiculous and arbitrary. Again, what about the 14th Amendment? Circumcised Christians are obligated to follow all of the laws of the Old Testament.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:12 AM
1

The First Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to do whatever you want because "god said so". We don't allow honor killings, human sacrifice, child brides, female circumcision, or any other variety of ritual scarification of children besides male circumcision. Religions don't have rights. Families don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Parents are not the owners of their children. The right to self ownership is a fundamental human right and the foundation upon which all other rights are bui…
/r/MensRights05/11/17 06:43 AM
3

There are different degrees of botch. Even if we accept the premise that not all circumcisions are botched, there's a huge difference between, say having too much tissue cut off, resulting in painful erections and and bleeding out, resulting in death. If you were logically consistent, you wouldn't care which one happened to you. Both are "botched" right?
/r/MensRights05/11/17 01:41 AM
6

Yeah, I struggled with what to call him in the title. He's obviously not a doctor, otherwise he would have said so. I would hope he's not a nurse either. Hospital security guard maybe? Janitor?
/r/MensRights03/11/17 10:56 PM
1

It's truly tragic how most men worldwide are unable to reproduce due to their penises all becoming gangrenous and falling off as a result of smegma. /s On a more serious note, with the mention of having a 10 year old son, it's pretty obvious why the presence of the Bloodstained men upsets him so much. Perhaps more ridiculous than the medical issues he deflects to is his assertion that circumcision is not forced. Buddy, obviously the doctor didn't force it on your son, you did.
/r/MensRights03/11/17 08:51 PM
1

999 men were asked questions concerning their circumcision status, their satisfaction with it, and a series of 10 true or false questions about circumcision and the foreskin. The questions were approved by two outside experts, one pro- and the other anti-circumcision, as having only one objectively correct answer. Questions included: The foreskin is typically the least sensitive part of the penis to light touch. The most, actually. Most medical associations around the world that have issued stat…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 10:16 PM
5

If nobody complains its going to keep happening. Protecting the human rights of future generations is important.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 11:27 PM
–

Why would someone not be upset? See my other comment.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 06:21 PM
21

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, the ridged band, and part or all of the frenulum. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin and walk around, the friction of his u…
/r/MensRights31/10/17 04:29 AM
1

Here is a map of states in which it is covered by Medicaid in the US.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 08:09 AM
1

I think you don't understand what convenience means It's really not any more convenient. Oh yeah, antibiotic is the solution to everything, i don't wanna depend on medication You probably won't need to, considering UTIs are extremely rare in boys and circumcision only decreases the rate in the first year. I agree with you, but it is hard to make babies if you use condom If you're regularly having sex with someone with an STD, circumcision isn't going to do you any good. And ? because it is rare …
/r/MensRights14/10/17 09:24 PM
5

Then he's just going to get cut "because he should look like his father". Who decided to mutilate a child is meaningless, what matters is that a child is being mutilated.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 07:42 AM
6

Mothers are half of the decision making process here, and how often is "girls like it" repeated as a justification for circumcision?
/r/MensRights14/10/17 07:29 AM
3

Most of the rest of the website is "How circumcision harms men." They're just covering all the bases.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 04:21 AM
13

I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying they're essentially meaningless. There are zero practically significant benefits that would justify amputating normal, healthy, functional tissue from a non-consenting patient. They're all inconsequentially small and can be obtained through far less invasive ways, which is why no health organization in the developed world recommends routine infant circumcision. The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive pa…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 02:53 AM
8

Well here's some anti-genital mutilation pieces from the right then: Stefan Molyneux and Walter Block. Self ownership is a fundamental human right and the foundation of property rights. All genital mutilation, male or female, is an egregious violation of the right to self ownership.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 01:55 AM
12

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, the ridged band, and usually part or all of the second most sensitive, the frenulum, too. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 01:51 AM
17

Easier hygiene Cleaning a normal penis isn't fucking rocket surgery. Takes two seconds in the shower, tops. Decreased risk of urinary tract infections Girls are far more prone to UTIs than either intact or circumcised boys. We treat them with antibiotics just fine. Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Minimally. Condoms are hugely more effective, and you still have to wear them if you're circumcised. Prevention of penile problems. Phimosis is rare, and even when it does occur the v…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 01:00 AM
12

There are at least mild health benefits for men, to the point that the American College of Pediatricians recommends that the choice of whether to circumcise be left to parental discretion. Wow, mild health benefits so huge that one of the most pro-cutting medical organizations on the planet, whose members profit from the surgery itself, followup surgeries, and the selling of harvested tissue still doesn't recommend it. And it's the American Academy of Pediatrics. The American College of Pediatri…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 10:24 PM
1

Well it's nice to get a doctor on video saying "It's not a medical procedure."
/r/MensRights09/10/17 05:44 AM
1

Definitely a false statement. At best, it doesn't decrease it, but historically circumcision has been practiced to harm sex drive. Jewish philosopher Maimonides said: Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 07:12 AM
1

There are actually significant risks of getting the procedure done at a later date. What does that matter? The overwhelming majority of men would neither need nor want it later. And many more pros then you are willing to admit. There are zero meaningful pros that cannot be easily achieved through less invasive measures. I've had three different pediatricians for my kids and they all agreed that circumcision was best at birth for many reasons. That would be the cultural bias of the American docto…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 07:08 AM
3

This one? Also, here's an article on a similar topic.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 01:08 AM
3

Children are not property. Child abuse is not an acceptable parenting decision. Any boundary hypothetically crossed by OP is nothing compared to the one crossed by a parent in choosing to forcibly mutilate their child. How much of his penis the boy would like to keep is just as much OP's business as it is the parents', that is to say not at all.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 05:23 AM
1

Where the hell are they that they speak Spanish and are even considering this? It's basically unheard of in Latin America. Equatorial Guinea? I feel like there probably aren't many resources in Spanish, since even in the US it's not common among Hispanics. Here's a thread on the same topic going on over at /r/foreskin_restoration right now with a bunch of links, though none of them are in Spanish.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 05:14 AM
1

That number sounds way too high to me. Babies do die from it though, and any number of infant deaths from a totally unnecessary surgery not consented to by the recipient is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights30/07/17 11:57 PM
1

The WHO definition of female genital mutilation, sans gender references: All harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes Even a pinprick is mutilation under this definition. A circumcised penis is (usually) functional, but not fully functional, because the foreskin is a functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive areas of the penis, the ridged band, and usually part or all of the frenulum. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more su…
/r/MensRights30/07/17 11:45 PM
12

In February 2014, a study on the matter was published in the U.S. scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that the benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks, by at least 100 to 1, and for certain diseases, such as penile cancer, the benefits outweigh the risks by 100,000 to 1. That study was, of course, by Brian Morris, longtime advocate for mandatory circumcision. I don't know how he even managed to come up with the latter number, because penile can…
/r/MensRights28/07/17 05:32 PM
1

I was basing that off of posts by a mod over at /r/foreskin_restoration, who seems quite knowledgeable on the subject. This belief is a common misunderstanding of the biological processes involved, passed along in the restoration community pretty regularly. There are more than a few academic sources showing growth of new nervous tissue to innervate the newly grown skin. While there have been no direct penile studies on the matter, there's no reason to believe tension induced mitosis for foreskin…
/r/MensRights27/07/17 12:47 AM
1

Of course Brian Morris is in the comments section, spouting classic Brian Morris-isms. That guy is everywhere. The other commenters aren't having it though. Many men will die as a result of their foreskin, as will their sexual partners
/r/MensRights26/07/17 08:47 PM
1

Easier hygiene Cleaning a normal penis isn't fucking rocket surgery. Takes two seconds in the shower, tops. Decreased risk of urinary tract infections Girls are far more prone to UTIs than either intact or circumcised boys. We treat them with antibiotics just fine. Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Minimally. Condoms are hugely more effective, and you still have to wear them if you're circumcised. Prevention of penile problems. Phimosis is rare, and even when it does occur the v…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 08:16 PM
1

I don't have any data, and to my knowledge there is no data on the subject, but I've only seen circumcisions so severely low that I would describe them as not having any inner foreskin remaining once or twice. It definitely does happen, but I don't believe it's common. So your scar immediately behind your glans? I'm sorry man, that sucks. I really hope Foregen is successful, especially for cases where excessive shaft skin or inner foreskin tissue removal makes more conventional restoration impos…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:18 PM
1

So called restoration can never regrow the lost nerves or replace the mucus membrane. You do grow some new nerve endings. You've not just taking the same number of nerve endings and distributing them over a larger area. What you can't get back is any densely innervated specialized structures that were removed, like the ridged band. The inner foreskin mucous membrane can be restored, provided it was not entirely cut off, which it almost never is. Given time and coverage, it and the glans will ret…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 05:32 PM
19

Last time I checked you could chose whether or not your son was circumcised in America. Doing any sort of damage to your daughter's genitals will get you thrown in federal prison for a long time. It makes no difference whether a boy is forcibly circumcised by his parents or by the state. The end result is still that a boy is forcibly circumcised.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 05:17 PM
2

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. -Moses Maimonides, Jewish philosopher
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:46 PM
1

The New Testament doesn't have much positive to say about circumcision. Outside of America, very few Christians are circumcised. Historically, almost none were. In the West, outside of Judaism, circumcision is a product of 19th century anti-masturbation hysteria, not Christianity. I don't know how much weight, if any, your particular denomination places on the pope, but the Papal Bull of Union with the Copts issued in 1442 outright condemns circumcision as a mortal sin. Therefore it denounces al…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:40 PM
1

Is she Jewish?
/r/MensRights25/07/17 10:58 AM
15

Here is a great paper from Doctors Opposing Circumcision about the alleged medical benefits.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 11:53 PM
–

Phimosis, even severe cases, does not necessarily require circumcision to correct. In fact, only a minority of cases do. There are stretching exercises and steroid creams that can treat it, and failing that, there are less invasive surgical options like preputioplasty. You should consult a doctor, and if they want to jump straight to circumcision, which should really only be the last resort nuclear option, seek a second opinion. Some resources for dealing with Phimosis: /r/phimosis https://phimo…
/r/MensRights03/07/17 12:06 PM
–

Lol, I think they meant to link to the AAP's report on circumcision, but actually linked to Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision. They just read the first sentence I guess. Hopefully people will read it.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 06:59 AM
3

Maintenance is no problem. I'm not sure how the meme that it's some impossible ordeal got started. Overall majority? Definitely not. Only ~30% of men worldwide are cut, the majority (~70%) of whom are Muslims. It doesn't really happen at all in Europe outside of religious or rare medical reasons. Probably not all of North America, either. Canada's circumcision rate fell off a cliff a while back and it's pretty much unheard of in Mexico. The US? Maybe. Depends what age group you're talking about.…
/r/MensRights03/07/17 05:40 AM
2

You assume correctly. Over time, due to the removal of its natural protection, the mucous membrane dries out, discolors, and becomes rougher in texture due to a process called keratinization. The built up layers of keratin protect the membrane from friction, but also impact sensitivity significantly. Any aesthetic value the opposite sex may place on circumcision is grounded in what they perceive as normal and ignorance perpetuated by a culture seeking to justify its continued circumcision of boy…
/r/MensRights03/07/17 05:13 AM
2

No, not really. Retract, rinse, return. Takes two seconds. If you're using soap then you're doing more than an intact guy should. Inner foreskin is mucous membrane, soap upsets it. Same as you shouldn't use soap inside your mouth or inside a vagina. Not being able to remember it could be used as an argument for doing all sorts of horrific things to babies.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 04:40 AM
2

Attached? You mean the frenulum? Circumcision probably wasn't needed, could have just gotten a frenuloplasty. A substantial number of "medically necessary" circumcisions come down more to doctor ignorance than actual medical need.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 02:40 AM
–

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has great information on this topic. In particular you want to look at Care of the Intact Penis and Wrongful Foreskin Retraction. Find a new doctor and consider filing a complaint. That doctor could be serious harm to a great number of boys.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 12:10 AM
–

They are homologous. The foreskin is larger, more innervated, and more functional, but they are homologous. That just means that they grow from the same tissue in the womb.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 11:34 PM
–

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, the ridged band, and usually part or all of the second most sensitive, the frenulum, too. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. The gliding function of the foreskin, which m…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 11:31 PM
6

Well, sounds like you had a legitimate medical reason. Nobody is advocating for making it illegal to get circumcised for legitimate medical reasons. Thing is, the vast majority of circumcisions are not done to correct medical problems, they are done to perfectly healthy boys for religious or cultural reasons. On top of that, a large portion of the medical problems necessitating circumcision are caused by improper care.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 01:20 AM
–

The New Testament doesn't have much positive to say about circumcision And for Catholics specifically it is definitely forbidden. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision [...] as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 10:05 PM
6

You forgot Pro: When something goes wrong it's another billable procedure to fix it
/r/MensRights01/07/17 10:03 PM
2

As with most aspects of this topic, studies tend to go back and forth. Some have found no difference, some have found circumcision correlates with premature ejaculation, others have found circumcised men last an insignificant amount longer.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 10:01 PM
–

Men are dying and being severely disfigured, too. Worldwide men are mutilated at in incredibly higher rate than women. You can't compare first world hospital MGM to third world tribal FGM like that. Every society that practices FGM practices MGM (although the inverse is obviously not true), and they aren't cutting girls in a mud hut with a sharp rock and sending boys off to a modern hospital. Third world tribal MGM is pretty fucked too. Certainly far worse than FGM in a hospital, which yes, is a…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 09:47 PM
–

Check out /r/foreskin_restoration, it can really help.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 07:28 AM
–

It's not. Some evidence points to a reduction in heterosexual female to male transmission, but not homosexual transmission.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:10 AM
–

Instead of making it a crime can we just have it as a choice? Nobody is advocating for making it illegal for adults to choose to get circumcised. Hell, they can chop off their dicks for all I care. Right now it isn't a choice, it's being forced on boys. It's nothing like FGM It's very much like FGM. When i was 12 i decided i wanted to be circumcised and it was the best decision i made. Why?
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:08 AM
14

Why?
/r/MensRights01/07/17 04:20 AM
32

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, the ridged band, and usually part or all of the second most sensitive, the frenulum, too. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 04:18 AM
17

esp. for gay buttsex Wrong. For female to male transmission, which has a low rate to begin with and isn't much of a problem in the first world. I haven't seen any evidence pointing to a reduction in male to male transmission. I read a huge WHO paper on circumcision today, and they didn't even mention homosexual HIV transmission once. Condoms are much more effective anyway.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 04:12 AM
3

For Catholics it's not just not a requirement, it's a mortal sin. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision [...] as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eter…
/r/MensRights27/06/17 05:14 AM
12

Stretching and steroid cream will cure most cases. You just have to stick with it, it can take time. Lots of people give up way too quickly. Failing that, preputioplasty. Some resources for dealing with Phimosis: /r/phimosis https://phimosisjourney.wordpress.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184
/r/MensRights25/05/17 04:58 AM
–

Research into whether or not circumcision results in lasting longer is at best mixed- some studies have found circumcision correlates with premature ejaculation. If there is a difference either way, it's certainly nowhere near the fivefold difference you're suggesting.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 09:22 AM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration It's great, would definitely recommend.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 09:03 AM
–

Here is another article on circumcision in Africa from The Guardian. People always love to compare female genital mutilation in Africa to western medicalized male circumcision, neglecting to mention that what happens to boys in Africa is pretty fucked, too.
/r/MensRights21/05/17 06:17 AM
–

Tracked down a working link.
/r/MensRights21/05/17 06:12 AM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights15/05/17 09:02 PM
–

The foreskin is an important, functional part of the penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, the ridged band, and usually part or all of the second most sensitive, the frenulum, too. A substantial portion of penile skin, and an even more substantial portion of penile nerve endings are lost. The protective function of the foreskin is destroyed, causing the glans (head) to dry out, become rougher, and desensitize dramatically. If an intact man were to retract his foreskin…
/r/MensRights15/05/17 01:14 AM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration I definitely recommend it.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 07:01 PM
4

Write to your state's Medicaid Director. http://www.circumcision.org/medicaid.htm
/r/MensRights30/03/17 03:02 AM
4

Article says the father is an Algerian refugee.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 11:35 PM
1

Doesn't really add anything, but AFAIK this is the original source.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 10:47 AM
3

I think most of the Type Ia happens in Southeast Asia, while that article, despite mentioning that it happens in Asia, appears to only have data on Africa.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 06:30 AM
15

The same way performing any other destructive, unnecessary amputation on an unconsenting child would be child abuse.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 04:47 AM
2

American doctors do have some pretty major issues on the foreskin front. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/doctor-ignorance-male-anatomy-harms-boys
/r/MensRights23/03/17 05:30 AM
6

But I'd thank them for doing it when I was young, so I could heal better. The alternative being not having to heal at all, since given the choice you would almost certainly not decide to do it. Very few intact men do. the myriad of benefits, and besides minor sensitivity loss You've got this backwards, unfortunately. The benefits are very slim, basically meaningless. The sensitivity loss is substantial, and it's not just the glans- circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, and o…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 05:22 AM
6

The overwhelming majority of circumcisions are for religious or cultural reasons, not medical ones. Infections can be treated with antibiotics. Girls manage just fine, and they're far more prone to infections down there than intact boys.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 05:14 AM
–

The benefits are so minuscule they're essentially meaningless, and hardly any of them apply to children. There is no justification for cutting a healthy child, and it is utterly preposterous to suggest parents should have the right to decide. It's not their penis. What other normal, healthy, functional body parts are parents allowed to have cut off of their children? It's totally unnecessary, and if the boy grows up to believe a fraction of a percent here and there in benefit is worth loosing th…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 05:05 AM
–

Check out /r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights23/03/17 04:04 AM
4

What makes you think it's slight? We're talking about the loss of a substantial portion of penile nerve endings, the destruction of the most sensitive part of the penis (and often the second most as well), and the difference between a protected glans that would feel great discomfort from friction against underwear and one that rubs away all day long hardly feeling a thing.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 03:16 AM
–

Dunno. The Defense Ministry declined to comment citing "privacy issues". Apparently they've used Cialis for altitude sickness in the past, so it's possible that it's totally unrelated to ED.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 02:17 AM
6

I prefer it that way. You can't possibly say to prefer something when you don't have the faintest clue what the alternative is like. the only ones who die are from botched operations from bad doctors. Any number of deaths from an entirely unnecessary surgery, done without the consent of the recipient, which even if performed flawlessly is still destructive and harmful is totally unacceptable. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. You are, a great deal in fact. The most sensitive part of…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 02:07 AM
2

You're 50x less likely to get the surgery at all as an adult (~50% infant circumcision rate vs. ~1% medically necessary adult circumcisions). I've never heard of an adult losing too much skin in a circumcision, as his penis is already fully grown. I've never heard of one losing his entire penis or dying either.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 01:38 AM
–

Women do sometimes FGM themselves, actually.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 12:45 AM
–

It's certainly not definitive proof of anything, but America consumes nearly half the Viagra on the planet and the Israeli army provides it to its soldiers.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 12:38 AM
1

I have no way of knowing the difference, therefore there is no difference That's utterly illogical.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:26 PM
2

Brian Morris, the owner of that site, is a circumcision enthusiast and fetishist who has supported making circumcision mandatory.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:22 PM
7

extra
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:18 PM
–

Two of your sources are Brian Morris, a circumcision enthusiast and fetishist who has supported making circumcision mandatory. Two more are from the Bossio study, which found exactly what /u/MenDeserveRights said and an earlier study found: that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. Quoting from the study: Tactile thresholds at the foreskin (intact men) were significantly lower (more sensitive) than all [other] genital testing sites” including the sites in circumcised men (e…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 07:30 AM
6

I was referring to clitoral phimosis (which is apparently a thing- can't have phimosis if you don't have a clitoral hood) and vulval cancer. I'm definitely not saying they justify any sort of genital mutilation, just that if we really wanted to we could probably find some inconsequentially slim "benefits" to use as an excuse for FGM, too.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:56 AM
8

Seeing as it's highly unethical to study, illegal in most places, and there's not a global medical superpower full of mutilated women out to justify what was done to them and/or what they did to their children, we don't really know. It's entirely possible that FGM performed in a sterile environment by professionals would present much the same "medical benefits" as MGM does. It at least has prevention of phimosis and decreased cancer rates going for it.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:33 AM
1

It's like removing the clitoral hood of a woman... which is classified as mutilation and illegal.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:29 AM
2

Type IV Female Genital Mutilation — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization. There are legitimate medical reasons one might need to have a procedure that, sans medical reasoning, would fall within the WHO genital mutilation categorization. That doesn't make it any less mutilation when done for non-medical reasons. Hell, there are legitimate medical reasons to amputate entire limbs.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 06:11 AM
9

I like not getting STD's as easily Minuscule improvement at best, basically meaningless to the individual. You still have to wear a condom, which is hugely more effective and doesn't require you to chop off the most sensitive parts of your dick. not having a smelly and cheesy dick It's called a shower. Funny how you only ever hear about how impossible it is to clean an intact dick from cut dudes with absolutely no experience with them. I last longer in bed Studies have shown it either doesn't ma…
/r/MensRights13/03/17 05:52 AM
12

The foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, the ridged band and frenulum. The former is always removed in circumcision, the later is often partially or totally removed. The chief functions of the foreskin are to protect the glans, keeping it moist, smooth and sensitive, and to provide a low friction gliding motion for more pleasurable and comfortable masturbation and intercourse.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 05:28 AM
3

A cleft lip is a birth defect. You know what else is a birth defect? Aposthia, being born without a foreskin. Circumcision is more akin to a surgery to give your son a cleft lip than one to fix it.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 05:14 AM
7

Adults get proper anesthesia and painkillers, babies don't. And even assuming it's more painful as an adult, the overwhelming majority of intact men don't choose to be circumcised or require it. You're talking forcing it on x% of men for the sake of the ~1% of that x% who would actually get it done as adults.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 04:59 AM
2

I've never ever heard of a circumcised male complaining about his dick. I'm complaining. This thread is full of men complaining. The majority of men on /r/intactivists are circumcised.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 03:20 AM
7

there's really nothing that can go that bad if you're in the US. Yeah, totally nothing.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 03:32 AM
2

Questionable and at best inconsequentially small benefits, that pale in comparison to the damage done. Yes, to each their own. You don't own your son's penis.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 10:23 AM
–

The procedure itself is absolutely a problem. Pretending it isn't is incredibly counter productive to the cause of keeping those blades the fuck away from infants. I would never in a million years even consider getting circumcised if it wasn't forced on me. It's a highly destructive procedure with roots in sexual control, harming boys, and destroying sensitivity and function. John Harvey Kellogg is the origin of circumcision in America. Going even further back: Similarly with regard to circumcis…
/r/MensRights28/02/17 12:26 AM
4

It's foreskin... It's the most sensitive parts of the penis. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. it's no way the same …
/r/MensRights28/02/17 12:15 AM
–

The west coast tends to be better on this issue.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 12:02 AM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration can fix that problem.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 10:12 PM
1

Unless it's treating a medical problem, which it almost never is, circumcision is not a medical procedure, it's a cultural ritual that just happens to be performed by doctors. And in many parts of the world, it isn't even performed by doctors, but rather by totally untrained people in unsanitary conditions. FGM is done by doctors in some countries, but that doesn't make it a medical procedure any more than it makes MGM one.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 11:36 PM
1

Yes, I have read the page. You haven't answered my question, are you OK with Type Ia FGM? What about Type IV? Ritual pinpricks don't remove any tissue at all. Are Male and Female Circumcision Morally Equivalent?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:39 PM
3

son has a birth defect have surgery on other sons to give them the same birth defect Flawless logic.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:28 PM
0

Wrong. FGM is a wide spectrum of procedures, some of which are less destructive than male circumcision. Take Type Ia, for example, removal of the clitoral hood. It's homologous to the foreskin, and it's actually less tissue. Are you OK with that?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:13 PM
1

Most research on the subject has found that circumcised foreskin correlated with premature ejaculation more than intact foreskin. O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) reported more premature ejaculation in circumcised men. Masood (2005) reported that circumcision appeared to make premature ejaculation worse. Richters (2006) found that the rate of "reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year" was 20% higher for circumcised men (26% of circumcised men). Tang & Khoo (2011) found circu…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:55 AM
5

Even in America, anesthetic isn't a guarantee.
/r/MensRights11/02/17 03:21 AM
5

The original intent of circumcision in America was to diminish sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation. It goes back even further than that though: Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. -Moses Maimonides, 12th century Jewish philosopher The primary functions of the fo…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 08:36 PM
–

He didn't emerge without disfiguration or loss of function. Just because it was the intended disfiguration and loss of function doesn't mean it isn't.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 08:54 AM
–

Well isn't that just wonderful. We view our diminished condition as normal and don't really think twice about it because we were deprived of the opportunity to ever know what normal is. my penis still functions properly Sure, if you don't consider functions of the foreskin to be functions of the penis. I am failing to see the downside of the "mutilation". Many FGM victims would say the same.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 08:49 AM
8

Well, realizing you made a mistake now puts you way ahead of most people. My mom didn't realize that until I few months ago when I told her. She was completely caught off guard, but handled it well, was apologetic, and I've mostly forgiven her. She believed there were medical benefits, and there wasn't the internet back then to do research. Reading your post, I think it's more likely that he might hate his father. What was his reasoning? Anything beyond "he has to look like me"? Because that was…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 02:18 AM
–

It seems like there's a pretty strong preference for intact among cut gay dudes.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 01:41 AM
2

Most research on the subject has found that circumcised foreskin correlated with premature ejaculation more than intact foreskin. O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) reported more premature ejaculation in circumcised men. Masood (2005) reported that circumcision appeared to make premature ejaculation worse. Richters (2006) found that the rate of "reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year" was 20% higher for circumcised men (26% of circumcised men). Tang & Khoo (2011) found circu…
/r/askTRP09/02/17 09:06 PM
4

Brian Morris, at it again. Guy is a circumcision fetishist masquerading as an expert. benefits exceeded procedural risks So only considering surgical complications then Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Exceed the Risks? by Brian Earp, Research Associate with the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. Conceptually, the CDC relies on an inappropriate construal of risk in its benefit vs. risk analysis, since it appears to interpret “risk” as referring (primarily or exclusively) to the “risk of surgical…
/r/MensRights08/02/17 05:50 PM
3

Yep, heard of it. The vast majority of cases, even severe ones, are curable non-surgically or with less invasive surgical procedures. Foreskin isn't vestigial, it has important functions. If you find yourself one of the incredibly small percentage of men to actually require a circumcision for phimosis, then that's unfortunate, but circumcision isn't a bad thing in that instance. However, it is absolutely a bad thing to do it to an non-consenting infant with no medical indication to do so. https:…
/r/MensRights08/02/17 06:41 AM
1

Skin is loose when flaccid That probably puts you towards the more minor end of things then. scar is right where the skin naturally attaches behind the head Huh? You mean where the cut was made and it healed back together? Well obviously that's where the scar is, but the thing is, where the cut was made varies widely from person to person.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 04:48 AM
1

There really isn't standard portion removed in circumcision. Dicks don't come with a dotted line that says "cut here". There's a tremendous amount of variation. High cuts, low cuts, loose cuts, tight cuts, whole, partial, or no frenulum at all. How far is the scar from the head and how taught is the skin when flaccid?
/r/MensRights08/02/17 02:58 AM
1

That's not possible. If you had no inner or outer foreskin left at all there wouldn't be enough skin left to get an erection. So either you're clueless about anatomy or you have a really horrific circumcision.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 01:56 AM
1

Also, circumcisions in Biblical times were far less destructive, only removing the parts of the foreskin overhanging the glans. It wasn't until, I think, the second century A.D. that they became what they are today, as the chief Rabbis weren't happy about Jews doing ancient /r/foreskin_restoration in order to blend in with Romans, who found the exposed glans vulgar, in bathhouses and nude sporting events.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 01:32 AM
1

/r/foreskin_restoration. You'd be surprised how much better it is, even without the lost nerves.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 01:28 AM
1

The primary purpose of the state, if we're going to have one, is to protect individual rights. Self ownership is a fundamental human right, and the foundation of all property ownership. Cultures don't have rights. Religions don't have rights. Individuals have rights, and cutting pieces off of someone with no medical indication to do so and without their consent, regardless of any religious mandate, is a serious violation of their rights. Therefore, banning circumcision is absolutely within the p…
/r/MensRights08/02/17 01:24 AM
1

I cum to fast already Most research on the subject has found that circumcised foreskin correlated with premature ejaculation more than intact foreskin. O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) reported more premature ejaculation in circumcised men. Masood (2005) reported that circumcision appeared to make premature ejaculation worse. Richters (2006) found that the rate of "reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year" was 20% higher for circumcised men (26% of circumcised men). Tang & K…
/r/MensRights07/02/17 11:16 PM
3

Fuck, man. I really didn't need to see that bit at the end. It's not something I would normally say, but that video could legitimately use a trigger warning. I can't believe anyone could do that to an infant. The screams are chilling. Fuck that guy.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 10:30 PM
1

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce. -Classification of female genital mutilation, World Health Organization
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:39 AM
0

The slightest bit of damage to female genitals with surgical equipment by practiced professionals is considered FGM. Yes, FGM is sometimes done in hospitals, and yes, it's sometimes less severe than what's done to boys. All the medical trappings in the world don't mean shit unless you're actually treating a problem.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:36 AM
–

you feel more than before Give it time, that'll go away.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:14 AM
1

Most research on the subject has found that circumcised foreskin correlated with premature ejaculation more than intact foreskin. O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) reported more premature ejaculation in circumcised men. Masood (2005) reported that circumcision appeared to make premature ejaculation worse. Richters (2006) found that the rate of "reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year" was 20% higher for circumcised men (26% of circumcised men). Tang & Khoo (2011) found circu…
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:09 AM
1

/r/foreskin_restoration can fix all of those problems.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 03:19 AM
4

There's nothing aesthetic about scarring and a dried out, discolored, rough head. You only prefer the look of mutilated dicks because it's what you have.
/r/MensRights03/02/17 01:36 AM
–

Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm. Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal …
/r/MensRights02/02/17 11:26 PM
3

probably helps a few out with PE? Nope. Just the opposite, in fact. Most research on the subject has found that circumcised foreskin correlated with premature ejaculation more than intact foreskin. O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) reported more premature ejaculation in circumcised men. Masood (2005) reported that circumcision appeared to make premature ejaculation worse. Richters (2006) found that the rate of "reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year" was 20% higher for circ…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 11:17 PM
1

We really have no idea, if the benefits don't outweigh the harm because there isn't a global superpower full of women looking to justify their mutilation, and, as the practice is illegal in much of the first world, very little study has been done into it. On a similar note we don't really know if the benefits of male circumcision outweighs the harm. Conceptually, the CDC relies on an inappropriate construal of risk in its benefit vs. risk analysis, since it appears to interpret “risk” as referri…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 10:56 PM
2

A couple of studies have shown that female genital mutilation reduces HIV transmission. It's not a well researched area, because unlike male genital mutilation, running tests on FGM in the west would be very illegal. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf On the alleged medical benefits of male circumcision TL;DR: They're mostly questionable and/or incredibly minor
/r/MensRights02/02/17 02:10 AM
–

Phimosis isn't genetic and it can be treated non-surgically in the vast majority of cases.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 01:58 AM
1

Phimosis requiring circumcision is extremely rare, even severe cases can be treated non-surgically. Here are some great resources on the subject. https://phimosisjourney.wordpress.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184
/r/MensRights02/02/17 01:50 AM
2

Far less damaging things done to girls are still considered mutilation by the World Health Organization.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 04:40 AM
2

According to the World Health Organization classification, piercing a girl's genitals would be Type IV female genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 04:29 AM
1

Is that woman a Xenomorph? Her head is so long.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 10:00 AM
3

Yeah, I can relate. Manual tugging makes me focus on the whole thing and used to really get me down. As I've progressed though, it's becoming easier to focus on how things are getting better rather than how bad they are.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 10:14 PM
1

Many do. Depends how tightly you are cut.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 09:49 PM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration Beginner's Guide to Foreskin Restoration (NSFW) Painful tightness should clear up pretty quickly. Longer term, you can get back the function of lubrication, sensitivity of the glans, and even make the scar fade away.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 09:48 PM
–

List of Court Settlements and Legal Victories Proving Harm of Circumcision from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. Someone born after 1996 (the banning of FGM in the US) should sue on equal protection grounds.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 06:07 AM
1

Yeah. If you have any inner foreskin (and I have seen one guy that had none at all), you can restore it to full size, although it could take quite a while due to the slower growth rate as compared to outer skin. My thought was just that more remaining inner foreskin means more nerve endings, so a guy who restored from a high cut would feel somewhat closer to the real thing than a guy who restored from a low cut.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:29 AM
3

And what are you comparing to? You have no idea what it's supposed to feel like.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:30 AM
7

It's not a little skin, it's 1/3 to 1/2 of penile tissue. In an adult, 15 sq inches. The foreskin contains the overwhelming majority of penile nerve endings. Without it, the head of the penis becomes dried out, rough, and desensitized. Healthy appendixes aren't removed from babies.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:29 AM
–

Phimosis? No problem. https://phimosisjourney.wordpress.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:22 AM
4

Howdy, fellow libertarian. <0.5% of men will need a circumcision for medical reasons. Adults get proper anesthesia, babies don't. Doing it as an adult minimizes the risk that too much skin will be removed. Libertarianism and Circumcision: Don't Mutilate Your Baby Boy by renowned libertarian theorist, Walter Block. Non-therapeudic circumcision of a non-consenting individual a serious NAP violation.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:14 AM
–

I've generally heard 80% as good as the real thing from men cut as adults who have restored, with cut rated ≤30%. I suppose it would partly depend on how much inner foreskin you're left with, but regardless it's definitely way better than nothing.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:05 AM
3

Thanks, Obama Trump Bill and Hillary. The Clinton Foundation is really into pushing circumcision in Africa.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:59 AM
1

Was it actually causing you discomfort or was it just not retractable? Because not being retractable at 12 is completely normal. https://phimosisjourney.wordpress.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:52 AM
2

It's not a medical procedure unless it's actually treating a medical problem, which it almost never is. FGM is performed by doctors in some countries.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:47 AM
3

/r/foreskin_restoration Beginner's Guide to Foreskin Restoration (NSFW)
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:46 AM
3

If losing skin is considered serious damage then this discussion is over and words are losing their meaning If losing 1/3 to 1/2 of the skin of the penis and the overwhelming majority of penile nerve endings isn't considered serious damage, then what the hell is the threshold for serious damage? American women may like the aesthetics of circumcised dicks for cultural reasons, but: Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:39 AM
3

Babies don't get proper anesthesia. Adults do.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:13 AM
–

/r/foreskin_restoration can give you a pretty good idea of what it's like to have your dick intact. I wouldn't say 10000% better, but it's definitely a lot better and still improving for me.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:11 AM
4

/r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights21/01/17 06:37 AM
–

All these things are documented in any medical book. Not American ones. They normally just show circumcised penises.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:04 AM
2

Brian Morris is a circumcision fetishist, with ties to pedophile circumfetishist groups, who would make circumcision mandatory if he could.
/r/TheRedPill01/01/17 08:18 PM
2

Except it doesn't make you last longer and it makes sex less pleasurable for both partners.
/r/TheRedPill01/01/17 12:35 AM
1

Penile cancer is extraordinarily rare. I believe the relative reduction is proportional to the amount of skin removed, but multiplied by the incredibly tiny percent of men that will get it, the absolute reduction is minuscule. I believe male breast cancer is more common. And if you do get it... just get circumcised then. Preemptive mastectomies for girls would be a vastly more effective cancer prevention tool, but you don't see anyone advocating for that.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 02:01 AM
2

My mother didn't think I would ever ask that question either, and yet I did. It's not something that people totally ignorant of the horrible damage they're doing to their defenseless infants expect to be asked. And why did you do it anyway? As for your abortion comment, the pro-choice argument is one of body autonomy of the woman. I'm not aware of any circumcisions being performed in the womb. Once the baby is born, that argument goes out the window and the only consideration is the infant's aut…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 11:31 PM
8

It's more of a 5 second rinse than a 5 minute scrub really
/r/MensRights13/12/16 09:24 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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