Lightf33t Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
2	Muslim father loses circumcision court battle over sons: Decision deferred "to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of the decisions which they reach." But if they'd wanted to do it before the poor kid could speak, it would have went ahead. Repugnant. Indeed if both parents had wanted it done to him at 4 or 6, they'd probably have been allowed to drag him kicking and screaming to be mutilated. The muslim immigration being forced on us by pathologically altruistic liberals will mean circumcision in Europe will never be banned. Then you have the Jews who whine about anti-semitism when you tell them they shouldn't be abusing their kids. Coming bac…	/r/MensRights	19/04/16 02:01 AM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. It's already been established the foreskin is highly erogenous. It's called histological analysis. No studies are necessary.	/r/MensRights	19/04/16 01:50 AM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. Precisely. I'm not saying I have suffered more than you. I feel for every circumcised guy, whether it was done at birth or later, and whether you're aware of the extent of the damage or not.	/r/MensRights	17/04/16 10:55 AM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. It's not a belief. It's a fact. If you think it's up for debate, then you think FGM lowering sexual pleasure is up for debate. But it's not, because we know less penis = less pleasure. Less erogenous nerves = less pleasure. Would you require a scientific study to prove cutting off a child's leg hampers his ability to walk? I have experienced before and after. I have read the objective hard science that backs up what I know. Bossio is not a scientist. She is a psychologist. You may as well compar…	/r/MensRights	17/04/16 10:53 AM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. Circumcision is religious, not science.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 07:11 PM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. If the study had concluded circumcision was harmful, it would have been conducted properly, because circumcision is factually harmful. It's not up for debate among sane , rational people. You cannot cut off erogenous nerves and have less penis, then say my penis feels just as pleasurable. I was circumcised as a teen. I have no pleasure because all pleasure comes from the foreskin. This has all been proven via hard science, i.e. neurology. No, they haven't, but it's very very obvious they have a …	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 06:55 PM
0	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. A urologist who had his foreskin chopped off at birth and was never educated about foreskin. Oh yeah, great plan.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 04:44 PM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Female circumcision was extremely rare in the West. Extremely. It was never socially acceptable in the way male circumcision was and is.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 11:30 AM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. So no studies proving FGM causes more loss of erogenous sensation than MGM. As I said. Funny how there's no studies exposing the fact many more males die from MGM than females die from FGM.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 11:12 AM
2	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. It's a problem with the study itself. There is no need for studies. There is nothing scientific or medical about circumcision, so it should be banned with no need for studies. It's like saying , I require studies should be done to assess whether cutting off kids' toes and fingers is harmful. Absurd.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 11:00 AM
2	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. Bossio tried to rebut Sorrells, but her study actually backs up Sorrells. She found the foreskin to be MORE SENSITIVE to touch (same as Sorrells) but not to other kinds of stimuli (which were not measured by Sorrells). so how can it be more sensitive to touch but lacking foreskin doesn't make you less sensitive to touch? This is the big problem with the feminist religion and cod science on circumcision. They are lying. You always get caught. When you tell the truth , you don't have to remember a…	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 12:13 AM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Ah, being thumbed down for stating obvious truth. Why can't more people wake up to reality. Psychology is bunkum. For god's sake, this woman is proving it. They talk absolute nonsense.	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 12:02 AM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. I was circumcised at 14 after experiencing my foreskin. Foreskin felt amazing. Post-circumcision I felt nothing. I've just proven circumcision kills sexual pleasure. No need for studies. Anecdotal, I hear you say. Ask yourself this. If a woman said she lost her clitoris to FGM and she can't feel sexual pleasure now, would you say to her, that's anecdotal, that can't possibly be true? One rule for one sex, another rule for the other. Doubletalk.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 11:49 PM
3	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. You don't need to get bogged down in the statistical jargon ,as the methodology was absurd. They didn't test the erogenous parts; they touched the non-erogenous parts. Outside of foreskin and the glans are both non-erogenous. It's the lips of the foreskin, the inner foreskin, frenulum, delta and the stretching of the foreskin that provide pleasure. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt when i emailed her, but I'm absolutely convinced she knows her study is bogus and she did all this because …	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 11:39 PM
0	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. Were you circumcised at birth, by any chance?	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 11:29 PM
1	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. If anecdotal evidence is wrong, then why do they keep saying FGM is sexually suppressive? Because all we have is anecdotal evidence. And not much of it either. In fact, it's mostly Westerners who just assume it is sexually suppressive and feel they don't need to ask the circumcised women's views or do studies. Funny that. She says there's a lack of evidence on the erogenous nature of the foreskin. What standards does she have? Is men with foreskins saying foreskin feels good not evidence? Why do…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 11:10 PM
-2	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. He'll be a man who was circumcised at birth , doesn't know what he's missing and wants to protect his ego from the reality he's a sexual cripple.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 10:59 PM
4	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. They didn't touch the inner foreskin or test for stretch reception. They only touched the non-erogenous parts. They also tested for pain and heat reception, neither of which are relevant. Heat is heat. Pain is pain. Erogenous sensation is erogenous sensation. Tell me, how can you explain her findings when intact men say the foreskin feels brilliant? How can you explain to me how I found my foreskin wonderful and post-circ I had no pleasure? How can you explain the fact she concludes this, given …	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 10:48 PM
0	So I just called the feminist who authored the circumcision study, and the conversation was as infuriating as you might guess. Fortunately, I recorded the whole thing…. Wow, so she's a truly mentally ill feminist cult member. Just think, society thinks it's a good thing to brainwash these women and make them do these fluff worthless jobs. What are we thinking.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 10:34 PM
-2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I don't rate psychology. Very little of it has any worth , in my view. If you look at her so-called scientific studies, they really are laughable.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 09:11 PM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. They have no neurological evidence FGM is disastrous for women's pleasure. But they claim it is. But when it comes to "circumcision", we need all these studies. Pure double standards.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:40 PM
0	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. They never test for stretch reception or touch the inner foreskin. They only touch the non-erogenous parts. It's deliberate. If they used this methodology on FGM victims, they'd conclude FGM is just fine.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:14 PM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I sent Jennifer Bossio an email the other day when I saw the so-called study. "Dear Jennifer, I'm Lawrence, a 37 year old man from Perth, Scotland. I came across an article linking me to your recent paper on circumcision. I was dismayed when I read it because I know the true harm this mutilation causes men. I'd like to tell you my story. When I was 14, I pulled my foreskin back in the bath and ended up with paraphimosis. I was rushed to casualty and this problem was fixed quickly by nurses with …	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:03 PM