TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Shaddam_Corrino_IV Archive

View 1 posts and 118 comments by Shaddam_Corrino_IV 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)
3

It might technically already be illegal in Iceland (i.e. the courts might consider it child abuse, it's not clear - at least according to the interior ministry).
/r/MensRights09/02/23 11:55 AM
3

E.g. you merely mention FGM in a male circumcision discussion.
/r/MensRights03/11/22 02:22 AM
3

I stress that I said some. The majority unfortunately opposed the ban. The organization Jews Against Circumcision testified about their support. I'm certain I've also read news reports where they were interviewed and a small number expressed support, but now I can't find them. Sure, but "Jews Against Circumcision" would probably not be Icelandic Jews. I'm in the "Intactivist" group here in Iceland, and I don't know of any Jews in the group - there aren't that many Jews in Iceland! :P I know one,…
/r/MensRights02/11/22 05:53 PM
7

Here's a fun challenge for you: Go to feminist subreddits like MensLib and ask why they don't discuss this topic! ;) fun fact: your OP would be removed (it violates their rules) and you would be banned!
/r/MensRights02/11/22 11:54 AM
2

Some Icelandic Jews recognized that human rights superseded their Iron Age mythology and endorsed the ban. Have you got more details on that? I'm Icelandic and don't recall that, but it might be true since there was a lot of debate on the topic when the ban was propposed. And to be fair it's not like it was just the ADL that was against it and probably caused it to stall in the committee stage.
/r/MensRights02/11/22 11:52 AM
6

"We can't ban child sacrifice, because laws shouldn't be put in place over beliefs!"
/r/MensRights10/09/22 11:34 AM
3

/r/menslib is more welcoming and open to speaking about men's issues. I only participate in discussions related to genital cutting (not "MRA" or "feminist" stuff) and menslib is absolutely not welcoming and open to that type of discussion.
/r/MensRights10/02/22 02:16 PM
2

she practices genital mutilation personally. She does? :o
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/22 12:53 AM
1

Why do you say that she "seems OK with" genital cutting of boys? She is one of the (many!) authors of this article that is clearly against all cutting of children. Maybe she blocked you because you were basically harassing her?
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/22 12:47 AM
1

From SE-Asia?
/r/MensRights31/07/21 10:22 PM
9

What would "extra" labia be? And I'm not sure how that's relevant to male circumcision. They're not cutting off something "extra" in male circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 06:22 PM
1

Cutting off a child's body part without a very, very good medical reason is bad? Isn't that pretty obvious?
/r/MensRights19/07/21 04:48 PM
1

I've a question, have you met any men who are not circumcized and are ok with it? That would be ~70% of all men on the planet.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 04:43 PM
2

When properly performed a circumcision bears no danger or risk towards the boy it is performed upon. There's basically 100% danger/risk of loss of the foreskin.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 04:41 PM
3

Been nice talking to you too! Might I recommend /r/Intactivism if you are interested in this subject :)
/r/MensRights08/07/21 08:19 PM
2

I don't think that the lack of data is because anyonw wants to keep people in doubt. It's not easy (for obvious reasons) to get accurate data on people's genitalia in Indonesia! But you are correct that many people equate FGM with infibulation or do something like totally ignoring the "minor forms". But I think that one should be careful to not overcompensate in the wrong direction. Not only MRAs are aginst MGM. That's just wrong. E.g. in the Nordic countries a huge majority of the general popul…
/r/MensRights08/07/21 08:04 PM
2

Here I found something on page 28. But I don't know how you would extrapolate from those 8 localities surveyed unto a population of 270 million that's is so varied when it comes to the practice. I think that saying that this is the "most common" form is just being sloppy. We don't really know that. I think it's better to say that it's just common or something like that, since that's something that's not really disputable.
/r/MensRights08/07/21 04:39 PM
1

Ok. And where are the numbers for Indonesia?
/r/MensRights08/07/21 04:01 PM
1

Do you have some actual data on the prevalence of each type of FGM in Indonesia? Are you only pointing to some government regulations? If so, then FGM is illegal in Egypt, so do you also assume that there are no or few cases of FGM in Egypt?
/r/MensRights08/07/21 03:47 PM
1

And where in there do you find support for the claim that a "the most common form of FGM is a pincprick or a nick"?
/r/MensRights08/07/21 02:52 PM
2

One, FGM is done exclusively to prevent female pleasure at sexual stimulation to reinforce the idea that they don't exist as anything other than what thier husband wants them to be. This is just false. Two, there are legitimate medical reasons for circumcision that could be as severe as ensuring thier baby's flesh doesnt die, rot and kill the baby(worst case example), ... There isn't a legitimate reason for male circumcision in +99% of instances. 2.1 there is no known measured difference between…
/r/MensRights07/07/21 07:34 PM
2

Despite the lie that's spread by many websites, the most common form of FGM is a pinprick or nick on the clitorial hood just to draw a little blood. Sorry, but that's not a known fact.
/r/MensRights07/07/21 07:30 PM
2

Here's an even more "the fuck" fact for you: Among some ultra-orthodox Jews the ritual involves the cutter "cleaning" the wound orally. :l
/r/MensRights07/07/21 07:29 PM
3

If you are just talking about cliterodectomy, then say "cliterodectomy" and not "FGM". The person you were responding to was talking about "FGM" and not exclusively "cliterodectomy". And this is maybe besides the point but I don't think we know which is the most common (I've seen peopel argue that the "minor" ones are more common in SE-Asia and there are a lot of people there) - but I don't think that we've got good numbers to estimate this. It's often hard to get good numbers for obvious reason…
/r/MensRights06/07/21 05:01 PM
3

...owever the equivalent of FGM for men would be cutting of the entire penis meanwhile the equivalent of male circumcision on women would be only getting rid of clitoral hood You realize that "only getting rid of the clitoral hood" is a form of FGM? So you're literally saying that the equivalent of male circumcision on women is FGM.
/r/MensRights06/07/21 04:51 PM
4

[NSFW/L]
/r/MensRights06/07/21 04:42 PM
2

If the other person talks about "circumcision" or "male circumcision", then I talk about "female circumcision" and "male circumcision". If the other person talks about "FGM", then I use "MGM". If they use "FGM" and "(male) circumcision" I might even go for using "MGM" and "female circumcision". Haven't tried that yet.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 06:13 PM
1

Ah... gotcha! 100% agree then :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/21 01:59 PM
2

FGM is pretty much universally accepted as wrong,... Not really. When you have +90% female circumcision rates in many countries, then it's not "accepted as wrong" in those countries. More like the authorities go along with pressure from outside.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/21 01:20 PM
1

I've tried a little bit to look behind the numbers that are given, and it's just hard to tell. Like, often the victims aren't really informed about what exacltly is missing and it's hard to get "precise" data (are you going to have a physical examination of a large number of women?). The most extensive poll data I've seen just asked the victims to classify what was done to them into one of three categories: "nikced, no flesh removed" - "flesh removed" - "sewn shut".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/21 01:19 PM
1

You're sounding like a parody account. Like, I merely asked the other person if he was talking about FC, MC or both. And you're going on some tirades that have nothing to do with anything I've said.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 09:01 PM
1

How was your comment: Cutting.childrens genitals is cutting children's genitals. Are you REALLY this dumb? In any way related to the question I was asking of Boihat? I simply asked Boihat whether he was talking about MC, FC or both.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 02:02 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights24/12/20 05:01 PM
2

Are you talking about female circumcision, male circumcision or both?
/r/MensRights19/12/20 02:33 AM
4

How is a pin prick a "more invasive surgery" than male circumcision? And how on earth is that "pretty obious"?
/r/MensRights18/12/20 10:23 AM
2

Although "male circumcision" is not a translation of "drengeomskæring". "circumcision of boys" is better, right?
/r/MensRights11/12/20 06:01 PM
6

To be clear: The document is about the consequences of the propsed ban on the forced circumcision of minors.
/r/MensRights11/12/20 05:59 PM
2

I'm just going to point out that the first link in that post is an excellent source. Basically it's an article written in a top peer-reviewed pediatric journal, and the authors are a large group of top European doctors. And it's a short article arguing against the supposed medical benefits that some US doctors bring up. Not a long read, and not some medical jargon. Highly recommended.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 10:15 PM
1

Not "circumcise toes". Cut them off. Is that OK? I mean, it's OK to cut hair.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 02:15 AM
1

What about toes?
/r/MensRights14/09/20 11:52 PM
1

The intent really isn't the issue. It's rather irrelevant. The issue is that girls and boys are having parts of their genitals cut off. If we have two islands. On both islands children have their toes cut off. On one island they do it because they want to make it harder for the children to walk. On the other island they do it because they think that it's more hygienic to cut off the toes. The harm done is the same. Who cares about the intent? Same goes for this issue. It doesn't matter for the v…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 05:12 PM
1

When you say that FGM is worse than MC, are you only talking about the subset of types of FGM that are worse and excluding the types of FGM that are as harmful or less harmful than male circumcision? And b), those take away from the experience of sex/orgasms. When you say "those" in this sentence, are you talking about the types of FGM that I mentioned ("hoodectomy" and ritual nick)? The entire point of FGM is to discourage sex in women No. That is simply not the case. There are various reasons …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 05:02 PM
1

It's true that FGM is worse. It's also true that FGM is just as bad. And it's also true that male circumcision is worse than FGM.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:51 PM
6

FGM can also be just a cut to the clitoral hood. That's less severe than male circumcision. If that's considered "genital mutilation", why isn't male circumcision, a more damaging surgery, also a form of "genital mutilation"?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:49 PM
1

Other than it not being quite the same... Yes. One is done to boys, the other to girls. Not exactly the same, but fit into the category cosmetic genital surgery on children.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:45 PM
-1

I'm willing to bet that most of the people in Turkey consider it OK ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:43 PM
1

Females are circumcised in an attempt to suppress and control their sexuality, in cultures where women are only considered marriage material if they are circumcised. This is an overgeneralization. Female circumcision is often done for the same reasons as male circumcision, e.g. religious obligation, percieved hygienic benefits, initiation. You don’t need foreskin to feel sexual pleasure, a clitoris is a big part of feeling sexual pleasure and that is what it is partially or fully removed in fema…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:42 PM
1

First of all, I was responding to the OP who drew a false comparison of male vs female circumcision. One is demonstrably worse, no amount of frustrated feels will change that fact How is cutting off parts of the clitoral hood or just a ritual nick to the clitoral hood (both types of FGM) worse than male circumcision? What are these "real differences"? (except one being done to boys, and the other to girls?)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:38 PM
9

There were many of them. You'll get plenty of that on r/Europe. OP is just blatantly wrong.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 09:46 PM
3

Thanks for this brilliant framing needle. Next time someone brings up the sand excuse, I'll point out how infibulation is a superior anti-sand procedure! :)
/r/MensRights12/06/20 07:42 PM
1

When you're talkng about "medical or professional circumcision" (I assume thaty you're only talking about male circumcision, and not female circumcision), are you including routine male circumcision, which is done on healthy babies, that have no medical problems?
/r/MensRights24/05/20 09:11 AM
8

If you don't want me to point out your friends are anti-vaxxers then they just shouldn't make anti-vaccination arguments. Full stop. They do use circumcision to shoehorn anti-vaxxer propaganda, they don't even hide it. Doctors in my country, who have called for a ban on male circumcision on children, generally aren't anti-vaxxers. If you don't want me to point out your friends are anti-vaxxers then they just shouldn't make anti-vaccination arguments. Full stop. They do use circumcision to shoeho…
/r/MensRights22/05/20 06:46 PM
7

The anti-vaxxer stuff stays up. This isn't stuff any normal person wants to associate with. Other comments in here have pointed out that "oral suction" is a part of the circumcision practice among some ultra-orthodox Jews. Pointing that out isn't "making sexual comments about children". And how on earth is that "threats these same guys make to molest children"? The anti-vaxxer stuff stays up. This isn't stuff any normal person wants to associate with. And again: Being against routine male circum…
/r/MensRights22/05/20 06:21 PM
17

And when they make sexual comments about infants, ... but the threats these same guys make to molest children, Sexual comments about children? Threats to molest children? Where on earth do you see this stuff? or try to shoehorn in anti-vaxxer comments , What? Routine circumcision is the qucakery. I'm just following what the doctors say in opposing it. :l
/r/MensRights22/05/20 05:11 PM
-1

the two procedures What "two" procedures? :S
/r/MensRights20/05/20 02:43 AM
3

Anyone with a modicum of sense realizes this issue can go only as far as routine medical procedures and can't be banned altogether because that would infringe on religious rights. It doesn't infringe on religious rights any more than banning FGM infringes on the religious rights of the sects that practice FGM. Where I'm from (Nordic countries) the children's ombudsmen of all the countries called for the practice to be banned. They're mostly legal experts, but apparently they don't have a "modicu…
/r/MensRights01/05/20 06:14 PM
3

Do you know how many men die from circumcision? Look up the difference and then tell me that feminists should work harder to end circumcision. It's around 100 a year in S-Africa. Don't know the statistic for the world. And it's not like I was talking about a huge effort on the part of feminist organizations. Just voicing their support. Do you need feminists to take care of your problems? If you want to ban circumcision, stand up and do something about it, don;t just whine that other people aren'…
/r/MensRights01/05/20 04:48 PM
3

Yeah. Even on the feminist subreddit specifically for men's issues, menslib, discussion on male circumcision is practically banned.
/r/MensRights30/04/20 05:39 AM
4

There is no reason make feminists the “other”by making up lies that we think it’s okay for anyone to have control over your body; your body is yours. It is kinda true that feminists are very silent on this issue. I just know that in my country (Iceland) when there was a proposed ban that made international news, there was absolutely no open support of it from feminist groups or prominent feminists. When a similar ban was proposed in Denmark there was one feminist group that wanted to make sure t…
/r/MensRights30/04/20 05:37 AM
3

Several countries in Europe (mostly north) have a ban on circumcision. False. You've probably read about proposals in N-European countries to ban it. So far there have been no laws passed that explicitly ban it.
/r/MensRights17/03/20 02:39 AM
4

Well, aren't you able to get operations like a labiaplasty and a "hoodectomy" as an adult woman in the UK?
/r/MensRights07/03/20 04:32 PM
3

Funnily enough, your comment would get deleted on menslib! ;)
/r/MensRights01/03/20 09:54 AM
4

Edit: Go ahead and downvote. I'm right. Removal of the clitoris is more akin to removing the entire head of the penis than circumcision. FGM isn't defined as "removal of the clitoris". It's cuts to or removal of any parts of the external genitalia for non-medical reasons. Some forms of female circumcision are as or less extensive as male circumcision. They are very comparable. They are so comparable that some prominent defenders of male circumcisions have started to advocate that those "minor" f…
/r/MensRights07/02/20 12:30 AM
4

I didn't quite get you. I noticed the difference (you conveyed that nicely), but it was unclear to me if you were pointing out a double standard or trying to claim that the circumstances were different.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 01:01 PM
4

Just infants lol A slight nitpick here. :) I agree with your point, but the "just infants" point is probably not what you meant. I.e. I assume that you would also be against cosmetic genital surgery on a 5 year old. "Just children" is probably what you mean - and I assume that you went to "infants" because it's mostly done to infants in your country.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 12:54 PM
7

The choice to circumcise is that of the parents and their doctors. You are describing the current legal status. But ethically, parents and doctors don't have the right to cut off parts of a child's genitalia for cosmetic reasons. Comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation is extreme and the two are not comparable. One is an agreed upon medical decision with educated adults making the call. The other is a horrendous act used as a form of torture and designed to inflict pain, shame, and s…
/r/MensRights26/01/20 10:37 AM
4

You're making perfect senes to me. I don't have a clue what the guy's problem is with what you're saying :l
/r/MensRights11/01/20 02:45 AM
3

What would happen in Iceland?
/r/MensRights11/01/20 01:52 AM
2

Muslim family? Or are there some other cultures in India that practice it?
/r/MensRights10/01/20 05:43 PM
9

which was inherently taken up by the Romans as the empire switched from Paganism to Christianity (a derivative of Judaism). What do you mean that it was taken up by the Romans? Circumcision has never been practiced in Europe, except by Jews and Muslims.
/r/MensRights01/01/20 02:01 PM
7

This has probably been explained to you hundreds of times: Religious freedom does not extend to cutting off other people's body parts.
/r/MensRights22/12/19 01:53 PM
4

If you are really interested in this topic, then there are some really good short lectures about the topic on the internet. As an example here's a good one by a medical ethicist (Brian Earp) who is a real expert on this topic.
/r/MensRights14/12/19 03:18 PM
2

Here's a great article. It's basically a bunch of high-ranking European doctors refuting the arguments that the US pediatrics association gives for justifying circumcision on children. It's short, to the point, and I'm sure that many of the arguments are the same. Others have pointed to Brian Earp, and I would just echo that, his stuff is great.
/r/MensRights01/12/19 05:48 AM
1

That's not true at all. Take Denmark as an example: At the first parliamentary reading in November 23, 2018, spokesmen for DF, V, S and RV reported that their parties would vote against the proposal. EL and SF were supportive of a ban, but took issue with details of the proposal, particularly the legalization of circumcision of women of age (i.e., 18 years old). LA, KF and ALT did not make a collective decision, leaving their members to decide for themselves.[41] So the two parties that were sup…
/r/MensRights23/11/19 01:57 AM
2

I think it's more that the right wing populist parties aren't afraid of being anti-PC in this case and listen to what the experts and the population actually wants. I mean, you also have left-wingers being for the ban (IIRC there's also a left-wing party in Sweden that's for the ban).
/r/MensRights22/11/19 09:29 PM
6

Banning male genital cutting on children isn't a right wing stance, though.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 10:06 PM
11

Correct. I don't think that anybody wants to ban it for consenting adults of when medically necessary. This is about having it done to children who don't need it.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 06:21 PM
2

I'm not sure why you say that "even hard leftist subs like r/worldnews". Is worldnews hard leftist? And why would hard leftist not be in favour of the ban? My guess is that you just have a lot of Europeans on worldnews.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 06:20 PM
13

You've probably heard this before, because a couple of other Swedish political parties have taken this position. Now there are 3. If we get this exact same story a couple of years more, then there will be a majority in the parliament for a ban. Then something will hopefully change :)
/r/MensRights21/11/19 06:17 PM
10

Going to happen. How many Swedish political parties were in favour of the ban 10 years ago? I assume 0. Now there are what, 3? In 5-10 years there will be even more. Then it's going to be banned.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 06:14 PM
1

Its so weak for you to use circular logic hoping people either don't notice it or not realizing yourself that its nonsensical to claim that mutilation and circumcision is the same. What circular logic? And it can't be followed. Laws have to be within reason. A law banning this can't be respected by the religious establishment, so the law would have no place. Of course it can be folllowe. Most of the world already doesn't mutilate their boys. And what do you mean that it can't be respected by the…
/r/MensRights16/09/19 12:18 AM
1

You have to realize how weak your stance is when you try a weak rhetorical trick like changing the subject. The topic is circumcision and not genital mutilation. Male circumcision is genital mutilation. In the US the idea of religious exclusion laws are unpopular since we are a pluralistic society and there is wide recognition that a legal precedent that prevents circumcision can be used to also prevent Baptism on the same grounds. That its 'traumatic' or the infant 'doesn't get to choose' or an…
/r/MensRights14/09/19 03:07 PM
1

The law is fine and there are no moral objections to it as long as it has a religious exemption. There is not reason to have religious exemption to the law. Just like we don't have a "religious exemption" when it comes to corporal punishment of children, or beating one's wife. We may not like any single practice but living in a civil society requires that we have a legal code that does not stigmitize specific people. Making genital mutilation of children illegal doesn't "stigmatize" anyone.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 10:41 PM
1

Its undemocratic to pass a law like this without a religious exemption. So article 218.a of the criminal code of Iceland should have a religious exemption? Dawoodi Bohra should be able to perform FGM, since it's part of their religion? basic human rights like raising a child. Cutting off pieces of your child isn't the same as "raising a child". Demanding a default of secularism is not acceptable, even in a majoriry secular nation. Secular nation? Unfortunately not. Iceland has a state church (se…
/r/MensRights12/09/19 06:39 PM
3

I remember when the MC-ban was being debated in Iceland. I'm from Iceland and was thinking about contributing to the discussion on /r/menslib, with some info about the bill (since I can read the primary sources... but then I discovered that I literally couldn't e.g. post the actual bill, since the bill literally just changes the anti-FGM-law to be genderless (changes "girl" to "child") - and that's banned on menslib.
/r/MensRights03/09/19 10:32 PM
5

I'm not arguing about female genital mutilation my friend,... Ok. But I'm bringing it into the discussion. The argument you made in defence of keeping male circumcision legal can be made to argue for having female circumcision legal. I'm arguing that you don't just get to decide circumcision is now genital mutilation without legitimate justification and force society to bend to your will, stifiling freedom in the process. Genital mutilation is generally defined something like any damage done to …
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:31 PM
4

You're making the mistake that safe circumcision without complication or complaint is comparable to male genital mutilation, which is not safe and im pretty sure more people complain about that regardless of if it is done properly or not. Why do you not consider circumcision to be male genital mutilation? I am trying to tell you you're infringing on peoples freedoms. People do not have the freedom to cut off other people's bodyparts. Its fucking stupid I don't want you to prove that im arguing f…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 05:02 PM
4

I'm being downvoted but you're the first person to make an actual point. I still don't think that circumcision should be banned because it is unpreventable. Multiple huge religions directly call for circumcision and as long as people hold them they will have the freedom to express that. If that isn't enough and circumcision is banned then what is going to stop a mom from doing it herself? Any punishments after the fact and they are a martyr and the government is willfully religiously prosecuting…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 04:04 PM
7

Ok. So should we allow "minor" forms of FGM so Dawoodi Bohra muslims can live in the country? Or do you hate them?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 04:01 PM
8

Are children at risk of contracting STDs?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 03:59 PM
5

....female genital mutilation is about women NOT having pleasure, they cut off the clitoris and/or close the vagina. In the USA circumcision was made popular to do exactly the same reason. And it's not only or always about women not having pleasure. And there are forms of FGM that do not involve "cutting off the clitoris and/or closing the vagina". E.g. a ritual nick, but that's still illegal.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 03:58 PM
4

There is no argument against circumcision that can't also be made against baptism. "You shouldn't cut off a child's body part unless there's a very good medical reason for it." is an argument against circumcision that you can't use against baptism.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 02:09 PM
9

It depends. It can be the same reasons for why male circumcision is performed, in fact in many places where a culture practices both of them they they don't really dinstinguish between them. So it can be done for religious reasons. People also talk about it being cleaner, supposed health benefits, reducing sexual pleasure, part of an initiation ritual and more. It's not just "to cause harm".
/r/MensRights14/07/19 02:46 PM
7

Also, it's not mutilation. The word "mutilation" specifies an intent to harm. That's not what circumcision is. So FGM isn't a mutilation if the people doing the FGM think it doesn't harm the girl?
/r/MensRights14/07/19 02:29 PM
2

Yeah, he's a horrible role model, but the point is that people can practice FGM because "Mo said it", not just to remove sexual pleasure. Just like people practice male circumcision because a different "Mo" said it.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/06/19 03:56 PM
1

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a response. The reason can be that the prophet Muhammed commanded it. Another reason can be to make it "cleaner" (just like you'll see American people claim that cutting off the foreskin makes the male genitals cleaner). Another reason can be to make the person more likely to get a mate (similar to the reasons American people give for male circumcision: "Good luck getting your dick sucked if you're uncircumcised!"). Saying that FGM is just to remove sexual …
/r/PussyPassDenied15/06/19 03:28 PM
2

So I see you dont know that almost all FGM is the removal of the clit (almost all not all) [citation needed] And only a idiot could think that a organ only females have is to masculine but again you pick some random tribe and say look this is what FGM is for when everyone know that is the fringe case at best. It was just an example to show that the idea that FGM is "100% about removing sexual pleasure from women" is absurd. If you want another example, then how about this: muslims. Many muslims …
/r/PussyPassDenied15/06/19 03:13 PM
2

First of all the discussion was about FGM and not cliterodectomy specifically. And again, persons can have silly reasons for it that are not to reduce sexual pleasure, e.g. some tribes do it because they consider the clitoris to be a "masculine" organ and so not proper on a woman.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/06/19 12:42 PM
2

No. That's simply not true. It's sometimes done as an initiation, as a "mirror" of male circumcision, as a religious obligation and so on. It's just not the case that people that do it are 100% thinking about removing sexual pleasure from women.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/06/19 11:47 AM
4

Just look up at the definition of mutilation - "the infliction of serious damage on something."F circumcision is inflecting serious damage on the organ. M circumcision is removing the skin that covers your head. IT WON'T make serious damage to the organ. It will be 100% functional and a bit cleaner. Ok. So is the "ritual nick", a type of FGM (basically a cut to the clitoral hood) a "mutilation"? There is no tissue removed, no serious damage and so on? I.e. if we go by your definition, "female ge…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 11:45 AM
6

Genital mutilation is often defined as the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external genitalia. Male circumcision fits this definition. But if you think that this definition is too broad, then I could agree. How would you then define genital mutilation?
/r/MensRights14/06/19 08:40 AM
3

The purpose of female genital mutilation is 100% to remove sexual pleasure. This is just not true.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/19 01:51 PM
2

FGM is defined as: Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. - Wikipedia If you just make this gender neutral, then you get: Genital mutilation (GM), also known as genital cutting and circumcision, is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external genitalia. - Wikipedia Male circumcision clearly fits this definition. So it's the same as FGM. Sure, s…
/r/MensRights29/04/19 10:21 AM
3

The criminal complaint: p2 describes her crime as "removal of clitoral skin" p8, item 16: MN-V-1 's labia minora has been altered or removed, and her clitoral hood is also abnormal in appearance. p 9, item 19: ...the doctor's preliminary findings are that MN-V-2's clitoral hood has a small incision, and there is a small tear to her labia minora. So, only talks about clitoral hoods and labia minora.
/r/MensRights14/04/19 06:55 PM
9

Male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. So for the sake of clarity, let's stick with that. Two major religions practice it and that isn't going to change. That is just a fact. Religion is a thing that by its nature is resistant to change, and the United States as a whole is not at all on board with any serious challenges to the Constitution. This really isn't relevant to what was being said. You said that to ban this genital mutilation the US constitution would have to be changed beca…
/r/MensRights14/04/19 12:34 PM
13

How is that in any way an argument against the point being made?
/r/MensRights14/04/19 11:34 AM
14

The Constitution of the US protects religious practices, and unless you're even dumber than you try to make yourself out to be, that means that your "should" will never enter reality. People aren't gonna change the Constitution for a perverted minority. Banning genital mutilation is not a violation of freedom of religion, even if some religious groups consider genital mutilation to be a part of their religion. Human sacrifice is presumably banned in the USA, even though it's a religious practice…
/r/MensRights14/04/19 10:15 AM
12

Just to add to this something that suprisingly gets deleted on 2xc: According to court documents the FGM in this case were cuts to the clitoral hoods and labia minora. So it wasn't cutting off the clitoris. You've got a lot of comments in 2xc thread about how stupid people who compare FGM to MGM are, since apparently FGM is cutting off the clitoris.
/r/MensRights14/04/19 09:26 AM
2

This is the supposed fact that she is opposing: a) "Men make laws that control what women can do with their bodies." She is clearly against this, that's her whole argument. Then she comes up with suggestions that are supposed to be the same thing, but with genders reversed: b) "Women make laws that control what men can do with their bodies." Her rhetoric is that since b is obviously absurd, you should see that a is also absurd. So she is not actually proposing that we should do b (e.g. forced ci…
/r/MensRights12/03/19 04:13 PM
2

And it's even harder to detect sarcasm when you are predisposed to interpret the person in question in a bad light.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 04:02 PM
4

You aren't going to be able to get a constitutional amendment. What does this mean? Why would he need a constitutional amendment? :S
/r/MensRights10/03/19 02:51 PM
6

You are basically saying that feminists should be against MGM if they are consistent. My experience: There was an attempt to outlaw it last year here in Iceland. It made international news and was very prominent in the public debate. The parliament asked a lot of organizations to give their opinion on it, including some feminist organizations. Not a peep. No support for the ban to parliament. No declaration of support for the ban anywhere. There was a similar attempt in Denmark, I didn't follow …
/r/MensRights06/03/19 05:43 PM
4

Some nations, like the U.K. for example are totalitarian, most aren't. Banning genital mutilation of children isn't "totalitarian".
/r/MensRights27/06/18 04:35 PM
5

Medical personnel and parents are against it in my country (and the government is considering making it explicitly a punishable crime). Maybe the "trifecta" is not against it in your country because it's part of the culture in your country?
/r/MensRights27/06/18 04:08 PM
6

2- For what reason are you advocating in favor of communism and against liberty? it is shocking to me to see so many people so ready and willing to subjugate others. Liberty does not include the right to cause physical harm to other people (that includes children). Banning this specific type of physical assault on a child does not mean that one is "in favor of communism and against liberty".
/r/MensRights27/06/18 03:29 PM
5

Yeah. It's still not clear what will happen. What's even more interesting is that one MP sent an formal question to the justice minister and asked whether "male circumcision" was already illegal (and a couple of other related questions). While a bill can "die in committee", the justice minister will have to answer this, and she might say that male circumcision is already illegal (i.e. it's probably an assault on the child), so then "male circumcision" would probably already be illegal in Iceland…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 03:23 PM
3

Mostly some jewish, muslim and christian religious leaders speaking. ~4 doctors (2 are at least pro-circumcsion), 1 MP and the children's ombudsman of Iceland. Here are the speakers: Dr. Ólafur Þór Gunnarsson MD, Member of the Parliament of Iceland, Co-Sponsor of the bill on ban of circumcision Salvör Nordal, Children’s Ombudsman of Iceland Rabbi Moché Lewin, Vice-President of the European Conference of Rabbis Mr. Yaron Nadbornik, President of the Council of Jewish Congregations in Finland, repr…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 01:44 PM
7

The law is proposed by the centrist Progressive Party whose leader Silja Dogg Gunnarsdottir invokes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says countries should ban practices prejudicial to the health of children. As an Icelander I would just like to point out that Silja Dögg isn't the leader of the Progressive party (looking up facts on Wikipedia should be easy). She's just an MP and the Progressive party as a whole isn't proposing this bill, but MPs from four separate political pa…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 12:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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