TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NotYoursToCut Archive

View 0 posts and 54 comments by NotYoursToCut on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

HPV in men? That's what circumcision's for!
/r/MensRights20/12/17 08:31 PM
10

It's incredible how a discussion about something so obvious — that boys should have the same right to their genitalia that girls have to theirs — can turn into such a shitshow. But that's the Internet for you.
/r/MensRights01/09/17 07:21 AM
4

if only for hygiene and health. These arguments are ridiculous. Uncircumcised women and girls have more bacteria-trapping folds and are more prone to infections than uncircumcised men and boys by a large margin, and we leave their genitals alone without a second thought. We just assume that girls and the women they become should keep all of their genitalia, despite their proclivity to infection and disease. Why should it not be the case for the less infection-prone male? There has not been one s…
/r/askTRP25/08/17 01:23 AM
2

Well said. And the health benefits angle is complete bullshit. I mean, what other normal, living, healthy, permanent tissue do we research the "health benefits" of cutting off at birth? The answer is none, and that includes the folds of the more infection-prone female genitalia.
/r/TheRedPill18/08/17 02:44 PM
3

Imagine that all the skin protecting your clitoris was cut off.
/r/TheRedPill18/08/17 07:52 AM
3

Fucking Bronze Age savages.
/r/TheRedPill18/08/17 07:50 AM
4

There has not been one study, performed under the same sterilized conditions in which science has examined male circumcision literally hundreds of times over, of the health benefits of removing, say, the female inner labia. There's something else going on here, and it's not science; if infection reduction were the goal, then the population most infection-prone (uncircumcised females) should be the population most studied. But as for me, I say: Her body, her choice. His body, his choice. Not your…
/r/TheRedPill18/08/17 07:29 AM
1

Once a guy turns 18, he should be allowed to undergo the procedure if he chooses Yup, just like labiaplasty.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/17 07:24 PM
2

Clearly. You lose the gendered nature of the term FGM (the F), and male circumcision would very much slot into a moderate to severe form of GM. In fact, there are forms of FGM that are commonly practiced in the Islamic world that "only" remove skin. Just this year the first charges under the federal FGM law were brought against certain individuals from Michigan. Let me share with you an excerpt from the FBI's complaint against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who is accused of performing female genital mut…
/r/MensRights11/08/17 12:49 AM
3

The whole conversation concerning a baby’s foreskin typically goes straight to “health benefits”. Thing is, though, we don’t treat any other normal, living, healthy, otherwise permanent part of the human body like this. Think about it. Apart from the foreskin, what other normal, living, healthy, otherwise permanent part of the human body do we perform a risk-benefit analysis of removing and then claim that parents should have a right to elect such a removal to be performed on their child based o…
/r/MensRights12/02/17 04:50 AM
3

Point is they at least have the right to form their own opinion. I agree that children should be able to form their own opinions on how much of their bodies they want to keep, but I don't agree that parents should ask their kid if they want a completely unnecessary surgery on their genitals.
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 04:06 PM
3

It happens when you are a baby so why bother talking about it? Parents do not have a right to do whatever they want to their child, especially when it comes to cutting off living, healthy bits and pieces of the child’s body. In that area parents are severely restricted. It is strangely enough only the penis that they are allowed to cut into. Parents who start cutting off or into any other living, healthy part of their child’s body as they see fit–and this includes similar folds of tissue of thei…
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:29 PM
8

Apart from the foreskin, what other normal, living, healthy, otherwise permanent part of the human body do we perform a risk-benefit analysis of removing and then claim that parents should have a right to elect such a removal to be performed on their child based on the outcome of that analysis? Answer: none. The prepuce, and curiously enough only in males who have less genital folds and are actually less prone to genital infection (as well as contracting HIV from unprotected vaginal intercourse)…
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:28 PM
0

He seemed indifferent about it medically. It can cause more than minor infections but I don't care to get into etiology on here. You can say this about literally any tissue.
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:25 PM
3

Have you ever seen a woman oppose male circumcision? No. I do. And so do these women. Dr. Anne Lindboe, Children's Ombudsman, Norway Soraya Mire, Human Rights Activist and FGM Survivor Marilyn Milos, Founder of Intact America Laci Green, Youtube Personality - say what you want about her, but she's right on this issue. Adina Rivers, Sex Educator Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross, Sex Educators Just type "circumcision" into the Youtube search, and you will get many, many videos of mothers who oppose ma…
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:14 PM
6

The usual argument is "it could get infected!" But that's true about anything. Exactly. The whole conversation concerning a baby's foreskin typically goes straight to "health benefits". Thing is, though, we don't treat any other normal, living, healthy, otherwise permanent part of the human body like this. Think about it. Apart from the foreskin, what other normal, living, healthy, otherwise permanent part of the human body do we perform a risk-benefit analysis of removing and then claim that pa…
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:08 PM
14

See, even that's batshit crazy. Should parents wait for their daughters to grow up before asking them if they want labiaplasty or hoodectomy or not? Or "let them decide when they're 16 or 18"?
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:04 PM
2

Really? You would alter your son's body at birth in anticipation of his hypothetical future partner's sexual preferences? Good job, dad. I mean seriously--if a woman rejects a man due to a foreskin, she's a complete hypocrite. Have you seen a vagina recently? Are you planning on reducing your daughter's labia at birth too to achieve that perfect porn-star look?
/r/askTRP12/11/16 10:41 PM
2

Yes, it does in-fact have some health benefits regarding hygiene and STDs. Some may debate how much, but generally there is a benefit if you look at the facts without a particular slant in mind. Risk/reward is still up for interpretation. We could link any non-essential body part to infection and disease and make a seemingly valid argument for routine amputation at birth. But we don't. Why? Because we have a general rule of respect for the human body in its naturally-occurring state–unless, of c…
/r/askTRP12/11/16 06:34 PM
2

Dude, teach your kid to have a backbone. "Yeah, I cut your dick because I didn't think you'd be strong enough to defend yourself from guys making fun of you because you have more dick than them." wtf
/r/askTRP12/11/16 06:34 PM
1

Wrong, for both boys and girls.
/r/askTRP12/11/16 06:32 PM
1

Why are So into baby dick? Really You're the one who's adamant about forcibly handling and cutting babies' dicks, dude.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 04:27 AM
3

So do you believe that I should be able to start a religion that requires that babies' nipples be cut off at 8 days old, and that should be legal? How about babies' pinky toes? Outer ears? Noses? Left arms? Do you also believe that parents should be allowed to suck or fondle their children's genitals for the sake of religion? No scars, no pain, no permanent physical effects, unlike circumcision.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:13 AM
3

No I don't think cutting anything off is any worse then LEGALLY PERMITTED CHILD MURDER Agreed. But the topic here is circumcision, which is cutting off a part of the body. Therefore, do you believe that parents should have the right to cut off whatever they want from their child's body "for religion"?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 12:57 AM
3

You didn't answer my question. My question was about cutting body parts: do you believe that parents should have the right to cut off whatever they want from their child's body "for religion"? As far as I know, Christian Scientists do not, as a matter of religion, cut off parts of their children's bodies.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 12:54 AM
3

Understood (I think...your sentence was a bit strange). But my question remains. Do you believe that parents should have the right to cut off whatever they want from their child's body "for religion"? If not, where do you draw the line?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 12:49 AM
3

So do you believe that parents should have the right to cut off whatever they want from their child's body "for religion"? If not, where do you draw the line?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 12:47 AM
3

Do you believe that parents should be allowed to cut their daughter's genitals as well? If not, why don't you think that males deserve the same protection that females enjoy to grow up with all of their genitals?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 12:30 AM
1

Hey, don't diss Ana Kasparian <3!
/r/MensRights04/05/16 07:55 AM
1

Wait. So you're going from cutting off a functional part of a child's penis is not mutilation to removing a wart or popping a pimple--neither of which are normal, living, healthy, functional parts of the body--being mutilation?
/r/MensRights09/04/16 11:32 PM
1

Dude, cutting off a normal, living, healthy, functional part of the human body is mutilation.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 11:21 PM
1

Cutting off a part of a normal, healthy, functional part of child's genitals = mutilation. Get over it.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 08:44 PM
1

Mutilate: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts. Does cutting off a part of the genitals injure the genitals by removing parts? Yup. Smartass.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 04:07 PM
1

aesthetically pleasing Yeah, that's not subjective at all.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:45 PM
1

So do you take issue with how these groups have defined female genital mutilation as well?
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:29 AM
1

My point was that if we consistently employ the definition of mutilation used when human rights groups define female genital mutilation, namely, excising any part of the genitalia apart from true medical need, then male circumcision is certainly male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 08:12 PM
1

The question wasn't if Labiaplasty is banned, but if Labiaplasty is a form of clitoridectomy and therefore comparable to circumcision. Labiaplasty is not a form of clitoridectomy. Labiaplasty affects the labia; clitoridectomy affects the clitoris. I also think, adults should be able to do as much self harm as they are able and willing to do, as long as they don't harm anyone but themselves and as long as they don't ask society to compensate them for whatever loss they might experience. Agreed.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 04:07 PM
1

Many human rights group have defined female genital mutilation as removing any part of a female child's genital tissue, regardless of intent or amount, and even if performed in a hospital setting. Do you disagree with that definition as well?
/r/MensRights09/03/16 12:56 AM
1

Nothing's wrong with circumcision in and of itself. It only becomes wrong when performed on a perfectly healthy child apart from medical necessity. The same would be true for many other surgeries.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 12:54 AM
2

I don't think labiaplasty on a consenting adult is banned anywhere. But labiaplasty on a non-consenting minor apart from medical need is banned in most of the developed Western world.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 12:52 AM
4

Nope. Look at the gains made against FGM in some cultures.
/r/MGTOW07/03/16 06:14 PM
1

Well for starters research suggest is protects against STI's and HIV. You mean a few heavily-controlled studies in Africa funded by circumcision device makers? LOL. These "results" just don't hold up in the real world.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 09:35 PM
2

I mean, just think about how much cleaner ladyparts--which, I remind you, have MORE folds and are MORE prone to UTIs, yeast infections, HIV, STIs, etc.--would be if we cut off the labia at birth! But nope, that's illegal! Why, then, is it perfectly legal to cut off a boy's foreskin at birth? www.notyourstocut.com/equal-protection
/r/MensRights10/08/15 09:26 PM
4

Should we research whether cutting off a woman's labia at birth has health benefits too? http://notyourstocut.com/2015/01/28/equal-protection/ And the foreskin is NOT useless. "Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 Even the CDC admits that the tissue is nerve-rich.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 12:43 AM
4

American physicians have little reason to question circumcision and much reason to not question it.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 12:42 AM
3

If she's Jewish, then you can tell her to go cut off her own flaps of wrinkly skin down there if she's so concerned with yours. http://notyourstocut.com/2015/04/04/whenever-a-smug-american-female-talks-about-how-gross-and-wrinkly-the-natural-male-genitals-are-kindly-direct-her-to-this-page-submissions-welcome-thanks-in-advance/
/r/MensRights28/06/15 12:42 AM
14

Of course we're against it. If female circumcision on children is banned, so should male circumcision. http://notyourstocut.com/2015/03/21/theres-no-comparison-between-male-and-female-circumcision-seriously/
/r/MensRights28/06/15 12:41 AM
6

You gotta love it when a Western woman--with 100% intact genitals that are protected by federal law--has the nerve to say that African women have it worse than the circumcised man she's speaking to who does not have 100% intact genitals. Easy counter: "But I have it worse than you."
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:29 PM
1

"Why?! Why aren't men angrier about this" ^ Because they've been culturally programmed to be "tough" and proud of their penis, and admitting that something is wrong with their penis goes against those notions. Most American men just aren't willing to see themselves as victims.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:51 PM
2

"NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF UNCIRCUMCISED PENISES" Newsflash, Milo: we do. Now go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 11:31 PM
4

"It’s not as if women don’t go under the knife to please men." ^ They certainly don't as infants. I'm just curious if the author would be OK with women having their labia snipped at birth to appease their future male partners. And we all know that women have even MORE folds down there and are MORE prone to infection.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 11:27 PM
3

NSFW In addition all the moral and ethical arguments against excising erogenous genital tissue from your child's penis or vulva, who the FUCK would want to fuck up their son's dick like this? NWFW http://notyourstocut.com/2015/03/24/circumcision-ruins-the-glans/ NSFW
/r/MensRights04/05/15 06:51 PM
2

Completely sick that older women--who are notoriously prone to genital infections--would demand that a newborn boy be circumcised.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 08:05 PM
2

If that's the case, you have to wonder why they didn't make sure you didn't beforehand...
/r/MensRights01/05/15 08:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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