TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Upstairs_Reaction_18 Archive

View 0 posts and 339 comments by Upstairs_Reaction_18 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

I’ve quoted them on other posts here and not going to repeat myself. Look them up yourself. There are plenty. Start with a Cochrane review of male circumcision and see what it says. Use google scholar. Plenty of articles. Look up the WHO statement on adult circumcision and the lower risk of HIV transmission studies in Africa.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 07:53 AM
2

FGM is not equivalent. I know that bothers you but facts are what they are.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 07:51 AM
1

It’s homologous tissue as I stated. Calling it “foreskin” obfuscates the situation.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 03:49 AM
0

I stated the facts about homologous embryology. However, the clitoral hood does not behave anatomically at all the same as foreskin. The clitoral hood is tightly bound, and cannot be separated through easily dissected tissue planes from the clitoris body like foreskin can be separated from the penis.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 03:25 AM
1

I posted several. I don’t waste time re-posting shit. Read all the posts. It’s dull as crap, do your own fucking research.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 02:51 AM
0

I’ve posted studies. Several. I’m tired of posting dueling studies. Research it yourself. It’s just as I say, plenty of studies, the bulk of them, show no deficits from circumcision.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 02:15 AM
-1

I have never done it to anybody. I am not promoting it, I am discussing actual studies and results. Deal with facts and not your feminine histrionics.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:40 AM
0

I am neither for or against circumcision. Studies of adult men circumcised as adults show no difference. I’m sorry that bothers you. It bothers me too because victimhood is so alluring.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:18 AM
-1

Lots of people have not agreed with you, but the fact that many do reflects culture, which, contrary to your bias, has been deeply shaped by Christian sensibilities. You missed living during the Roman Empire, too bad. They blamed Christians for its collapse.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:16 AM
1

Um, laws reflect the dominant culture. Many laws in the West reflect Christian sensibilities. Give it time, as we descend to more chaos, the laws will follow. In and of themselves, laws do not make things moral, they merely reflect the morals of those who make them.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:14 AM
-1

No, they ended early because the data was so good that the WHO recommended circumcision to lower rates of heterosexual HIV transmission.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:12 AM
1

I didn’t say that I supported all things that all religions do lol. I said, without God there is no objective standard of morality. What is your basis for calling such behavior wrong? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong. You’re basing it on an opinion that you think meets an objective standard.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:09 AM
1

I can’t prove God, I have evidence for God. Murder is ok in the animal kingdom. Have you watched chimps? Crocodiles? Yeah, it’s not pretty, but it’s not sinful or wrong. The law is a bad basis for morality. The Weimar Republic had laws. The Roman Empire had laws. Bad laws make for bad morality and vice versa. Without God, no objective standard exists.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:07 AM
1

Man has free will to sin or not sin. It was a sin to burn people at the stake. In your world, it’s just a very un-nice thing to do, just like how chimps treat each other. The evidence and arguments for God fill entire libraries. Do your own research.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:00 AM
1

I never said how I would behave if I did not believe in God. What I said is that you can’t fashion a morality without the concept of God. All morality would just be opinions, and not TRUTH.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:58 AM
1

That would be fake, and you can’t fake out God lol.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:43 AM
1

An animal that is more intelligent than another animal is very nice. However, that does not change its ontological essence. If we are equal to animals, we may behave as animals.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:42 AM
-1

Abusing children is a mortal sin. What more do you want? It’s not a sin in your world view, so what’s your beef? The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim depredations and invasions into Europe. Look it up. Thanks to those wars, you don’t have to pray five times a day facing Mecca and be circumcised. The inquisition is indefensible, but again, the creed doesn’t call for that and is self-correcting in that it’s a sin to do such things. The total death toll, tragic as it was, is about 3,000. It is sa…
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:41 AM
1

I am all for redemption if it’s sincere. I leave that question up to God.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:32 AM
1

Pay attention. If there is no God, and we don’t have souls, how are we ontologically different from chimps and why exactly would something be wrong or immoral or sinful?
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:31 AM
1

Yes it makes it even worse. I call it a mortal sin.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:29 AM
1

If not, then we are ontologically equal to chimps. Do you have a dictionary? Use it. Do you study philosophy? Study harder.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:28 AM
1

So we have souls?
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:25 AM
1

Ontologically we are equal to chimps in the world of evolution. The Dark Ages were actually not “dark” at all, historians have discarded that stupid canard. Try to keep up.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:18 AM
-1

Child abuse is a sin according to the Catholic Church. Is it a sin according to the atheist handbook of morality? It seems that non Christians used to do human child sacrifice. It was stopped world wide mostly due to the proliferation of Christianity. The Romans invented crucifixion for criminals. Was that wrong? Says who? Says you? I’d bet that late term abortions are ok to you, so why do you worry about kids at all? Can you kill them before they’re born? Why is that ok?
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:17 AM
2

Why is there more to the debate than studies? It’s a medical question and a cultural one. I’m all for ppl NOT doing it! I am against histrionics about those who have had it done.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:01 AM
1

You have to do better than that. Is removing excess skin damaging to the skin left behind? No, it is not. Likewise, removing foreskin does not clinically damage the remaining skin or the function of the penis. Studies show that. I’m sorry that bothers you. It bothers me too, I’m very upset by that, I so want it to be true that circumcision is horrible and unfair, I so badly want it to be the case that men have been oppressed and sexually ruined by circumcision, but it’s just not true, darn it. W…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 11:52 PM
-1

You can’t remove any part of the clitoris without damage. You can remove the foreskin without damage. That’s how that works as shown by studies.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 11:40 PM
1

Why aren’t we chimps? Evolution says we are. If we don’t have souls, then we are.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 11:39 PM
-1

I did not say that I need religion to tell me that causing “harm” is immoral. I said that for something to be objectively moral or immoral, there has to be a judge that exists outside of the human mind to give it objective standards. I’m pretty sure that the Chinese communists believe that they are doing “good”. Are they? Who gets to judge that? If Man is ontologically equal to chimps, why can’t we behave as chimps? Says who? You? Genghis Khan disagreed. Was he wrong? Says who? Why? Are you tell…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 11:38 PM
0

I’m insufferable because studies show that kids have lower rates of UTI if they’re circumcised? That’s weird. I merely report the best established science. Deal with it however you want to. I don’t give a shit one way or the other. I have four sons and I did not have them circumcised so get on your fainting couch.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 11:31 PM
-1

You fuck off first. I’m indifferent to it but I hate histrionic girly men who whine about their dicks.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:13 PM
0

I have voluminous posts of actual studies that show circumcision is not “bad”. I’m not going to do your research for you. Read the posts. Read the studies.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:07 PM
1

Well it doesn’t matter what you like or don’t like. If we are chimps, then chimp on my dude.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:05 PM
1

Fashion a moral code then. You can’t without religion.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:04 PM
-1

Studies are what they are. Deal with it. Real world studies.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:03 PM
1

Have fun making up a moral code on nothing.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 10:02 PM
1

Ok ape man. Chimp on dude.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:38 PM
1

I’m simply telling you that a moral code cannot exist without the concept of God. Until you admit that, there’s nothing to discuss.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:27 PM
1

I evolved to believe the things I do. Deal with it. Evolution is a bitch.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:27 PM
1

You’re actually incapable of cognition.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:25 PM
1

You’re daft. If Man is ontologically equal to chimps, then we may behave as chimps. If religionists do bad things, that’s called sinning. If atheists do bad things, is that sinning? Yes, because God’s moral code is binding on everyone. In your world view, there is nothing right or wrong. Says who? Says you? Where is the atheist handbook of morality, you can’t tell me where this thing is! Stalin didn’t give a shit, neither did any communist, nor does any communist today! What gives you the right …
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:24 PM
1

Um, societies haven’t functioned very well, ever! If we are just evolved apes, then why can’t we behave as apes? Hmmm smarty pants? Ever watch chimps? It ain’t pretty. But you can’t call their behavior wrong or sinful! It just is. Deal with it, mister illogical person incapable of cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:14 PM
1

What is your other side? Fashion a moral code for me, mister advanced ape. Do it! Let me see the atheist handbook of morals that y’all agree to.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:10 PM
1

You’re not a man of logic. If you were, you would believe that mankind can do whatever he wants to just as animals can. Are we animals? Why not? Do we have souls maybe? Then maybe “do unto others” is a moral law that transcends your opinions and mine.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:09 PM
1

All of that is beside the point! There is objective moral truth. That’s the point. It can’t be something inside your head, or my head, it has to exist in the real world. That is the mind of God.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:04 PM
1

They actually formed a kind of pagan nonsense religion.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 09:03 PM
1

Decent human being lol. Yeah, lots of monsters have thought they were decent human beings. God disagrees, and that is the only objective opinion that matters, everything else is just electrochemical impulses inside evolved chimp brains.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:57 PM
1

Aha! So there is a moral code that transcends our opinions. I agree. That is the supreme moral Code and it comes from God and the fact that humans have souls. If not, we are like chimps and may chimp around.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:56 PM
1

That is false. Atheists have no moral code of any kind, show me.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:55 PM
1

I have tons of posts, read them. Lazy.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:54 PM
1

They had an entire pagan religion, look it up. Good grief.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:54 PM
1

Nazis were anti Christian my dude. They killed hundreds of thousands of Catholic poles and thousands of priests and nuns. You are mis -informed. They had a pagan “religion”. It was an ethnocentric secular religion of state power. It was very anti Christian.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:53 PM
1

Doing horrendous things in the name of God is a violation of the objective moral code. You have no moral code, you have the atheist handbook which doesn’t exist. Communists have killed over 150 million people in the last 150 years. So you can’t say that atheism has a great track record. All of that is beside the point that there is objective moral truth. It transcends your opinions and mine.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:51 PM
1

They were not majority Catholic lol. And they were wrong to own slaves, and Christians stopped the slave trade. And if it’s wrong, it’s wrong according to a moral code. What atheist handbook tells you that it’s wrong? I have not heard of this book.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:49 PM
1

Nazis were pagans. Communists tried separation of church and state, they still do. Fail.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:40 PM
1

Without God, anything is permissible. Man would be no different ontologically than chimps. Chimps gotta chimp. There is objective truth and you are not it. Neither am I.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:39 PM
1

Communists still disagree with you, as do cannibals and people who own slaves. Are they wrong? Yes, they are objectively wrong and God is the author of objective moral truth. You’re just pretending that all people have accepted the law of “do unto others”. They have not. It’s no more true to a mobster than it is to a serial killer. There has to be an objective standard outside of the minds of chimps.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:25 PM
1

So they were wrong. But according to whom? According to objective moral law? Whose objective moral law? Oh yeah, the real God and not their fake gods. You have no moral basis to call them wrong if Man is ontologically equal to chimps. Chimps gotta chimp. Man has a soul and so they were wrong. Atheists have no moral code book. You’re swimming in a sea of Christian sensibilities and you think that it’s “natural” to say they were wrong. But it’s not natural, the entire pagan world did these things,…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 08:23 PM
1

That’s missing the point. The point is not that I am good only out of obedience, the point is that my behavior is good or bad based on objective standards. I am not the author of those standards and neither are you.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:39 PM
1

So the Nazi laws were ok because a “democracy” decided them? The Aztecs doing human sacrifice were morally ok because that obeyed their laws? Nothing is falsifiable in morality, that’s not a thing lol, you made that up.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:34 PM
-2

What level of autonomy do you want to grant to infants? Can they decide to have their phimosis repaired? Can they decide to have an undescended testicle removed? Can they decide to have their clitoromegaly operated? Can they decide to have a blood transfusion? Where do we draw the lines? My point is that circumcision is at the border or nexus of “ok to decide for the baby” and “not ok to decide for the baby.” It’s medically beneficial but not necessary. It’s not mutilation. It’s neutral as far a…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:32 PM
1

Ok, But is there objectively right and wrong? And who or what judges that, you? Me? Chimps? There has to be objective moral truth that transcends your opinion and my opinion or else it is just opinions.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:28 PM
1

So sin is real, and the moral code is real. We can’t behave as chimps. Right? Says who? Says the supreme judge. Anything else is one chimp’s opinion.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:26 PM
1

Lol. And what are the detrimental effects genius? You have no idea what you’re trying to say. It’s pathetic. Oophorectomy of neonates would result in infertility and bone disorders and growth retardation and risk of stroke and Parkinson’s disease and heart disease and a host of other abnormalities. You are arguing nonsense.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:24 PM
1

I don’t give a flying fuck about religious reasons for doing it.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:15 PM
1

I don’t seem to be doing anything other than stating very specific facts and evidences that you seem to think means that I promote this. I am FUCKING INDIFFERENT TO IT. It’s not mutilation, it has some medical benefits. That’s it.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:15 PM
1

That’s why the AAP says it is up to parents. It’s not “necessary” but it is beneficial to lower risks of UTIs in kids and STDs in adults and is not mutilating. See how that works?
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:11 PM
1

Cost:benefit analysis isn’t there genius. Not for testicles either.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:09 PM
1

It’s a sin. Law doesn’t necessarily equal sin. Nazi germany had laws genius.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:08 PM
1

I never said it was beneficial to a female. You lied!
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:03 PM
0

Would that be a sin? Yes, because Christianity says that it is a sin, not because secular atheists called it a sin, because secular atheists have no handbook of sin lol. Y’all have power and armies and that’s all you have.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:01 PM
3

It’s not mutilation. I am not saying that is should be done or should not be done. Pay attention.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:59 PM
1

The point is not that religion per se has the answers, but that God has the answers and He is the supreme judge of right and wrong. Everything else is just the opinion of one chimpanzee vs another, and you’re not the chimpanzee that I’m going to trust, sorry. Just because different people have different conceptions of the Supreme Law doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:59 PM
1

I never moved goalposts, you guys do. First you claim it’s mutilating, then you say it’s about autonomy, then it’s medically hurtful. I will review your study when I can give it time, off the top of my head I’d say that it’s dubious to be true since most studies and official statements from medical organizations don’t see it that way at all. Kaiser Permanente has a vested interest in NOT wanting it to be beneficial, yet their study showed that it is.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:54 PM
1

Removing ovaries is not beneficial medically and totally unrelated to the question of circumcision.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:50 PM
2

Dude, my point is that there is objective right and wrong, dude. Now from whence does it arise? Hmmm? Use that big brain of yours and tell me how there can be objective right and wrong and how do YOU have this special blessing to know what it is?! How do you get so enlightened and what code are you using by which to judge others as being wrong?
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:49 PM
1

Whose secular laws are you going to impose lol? And what defines secular? And who gets to decide? This may shock you, but atheist secularists have murdered hundreds of millions of people. Communism ain’t no joke.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:41 PM
1

So the question is risk/reward. And the answer from experts is that the benefits vs risks are enough that it can and should be done if the parents choose. See how simple that is? Yet you wanna pretend that it’s mutilating when it is not. Hyperbole is for feminists.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:36 PM
1

Says who? Says you? Everybody apparently doesn’t agree or they would not have lived that way. Cannibals like being cannibals, who are you to impose your morality on them? My point is that objective morality exists, and it is real. Now you tell me how that can be if Man is ontologically equal to chimpanzees.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:33 PM
2

My point is that it’s not mutilation for fuck sake. Let’s just stop the hyperbole.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:26 PM
1

I have never seen a risk/reward analysis of prophylactic appendectomy, I’m pretty sure the result would be negative. Risk of Urinary Tract Infections During the First Year of Life Edgar J. Schoen, MD; Christopher J. Colby, PhD; G. Thomas Ray, MBA Reprint requests to (E.J.S.) Department of Genetics, Regional Perinatal Screening Program, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, 280 W MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611. E-mail:[email protected] Pediatrics (2000) 105 (4): 789–793. https://doi.or…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:15 PM
1

Are you just lazy? Risks of Urinary Tract Infections During the First Year of Life Edgar J. Schoen, MD; Christopher J. Colby, PhD; G. Thomas Ray, MBA Reprint requests to (E.J.S.) Department of Genetics, Regional Perinatal Screening Program, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, 280 W MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611. E-mail:[email protected] Pediatrics (2000) 105 (4): 789–793. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.105.4.789 Article history Share Tools Search Site Objective. To assess the effect …
/r/MensRights10/06/23 06:13 PM
1

Putatively fewer UTIs. I am invested in nothing. I did not circumcise my boys so be silent before you say lies.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:48 PM
1

I am indifferent to it.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:32 PM
-1

Bodily autonomy is a modern phrase that has crept into our public discourse. It’s not absolute in my opinion (can you do a frontal lobotomy on yourself? Really? Take all the drugs you want? Cut off your arms?). But consent is a good enough argument for neonatal circumcision that I am indifferent to the procedure, since it does have putative medical benefits.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:32 PM
1

If you knew shit about Cochrane reviews you could find it yourself lazy ass.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:06 PM
1

No, it’s from 2021. Fail.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:05 PM
-6

There are no medical benefits to anything done to female genitalia, there are benefits to male circumcision. There is no significant downside to male circumcision. “Introduction: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines state that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, but these benefits are not enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. Therefore, it is the guardians' decision to circumcise their son.” Medical facts don’t care about your feelings.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:03 PM
1

Introduction: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines state that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, but these benefits are not enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. Therefore, it is the guardians' decision to circumcise their son. Nov 9, 2021
/r/MensRights10/06/23 05:00 PM
1

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2/full Now YOU accept facts.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:58 PM
1

Lol. The WHO actually publishes papers on African adult male circumcision to lower rates of HIV transmission. Cochrane review of the question showed that adult circumcision can lower rates of HIV transmission with minimal side effects. You DO know what a Cochrane review is? No, you don’t. Look it up.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:56 PM
-13

I answered your question. There is no tissue that can be removed from a clitoris in any way, shape, or form that is analogous to male circumcision. If a woman has clitoromegaly, that’s a different scenario. If a woman wants removal of excess labia minora, that also is a different issue. It’s like asking how much breast tissue can you remove before it becomes “mutilation”. It all depends on what you’re removing, how much, what exact tissues, etc.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:53 PM
1

Consent is the best argument against neonatal circumcision, I agree.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:46 PM
-18

A clitoris does not have foreskin. I’m sorry that bothers you. It has homologous tissue anatomically and embryologically, but that is not the “same thing.” Foreskin is easily removed and leaves the penis functionally the same, and sensitivity is also unchanged according to studies of adult men circumcised as adults. I want to feel oppressed and victimized and unhappy like all of you intactivists, I really do. I want feminists to have to deal with a group of men marching in the streets against op…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:46 PM
1

Ok so now what ? Your occasional study says yes, most studies (meta analysis of thousands of patients) say no difference. Dueling studies. Boring.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:26 PM
1

Look at the subsequent study review of actual patients who underwent the procedure. Thousands of patients. No difference.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:25 PM
0

I like studies and they show no difference. Sorry.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:23 PM
0

That’s not obvious and studies of adult men circumcised as adults show no difference. Look at studies in Africa done to lower HIV transmission rates.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:23 PM
-1

No, there are putative medical benefits. Look up the AAP website. And no, pediatricians don’t do circumcisions routinely, and it’s not a money maker for shit, so that argument is crap.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 04:22 PM
0

Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review Brian J Morris, John N Krieger The journal of sexual medicine 10 (11), 2644-2657, 2013 Introduction Circumcision of males is commonly carried out worldwide for reasons of health, medical need, esthetics, tradition, or religion. Whether circumcision impairs or improves male sexual function or pleasure is controversial. Aims The study aims to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature. Me…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 03:05 PM
2

Ok, here we go. Sigh: Jennifer A Bossio, Caroline F Pukall, Stephen S Steele The Journal of Urology 195 (6), 1848-1853, 2016 Purpose: Little is known about the long-term implications of neonatal circumcision on the penile sensitivity of adult men, despite recent public policy endorsing the procedure in the United States. In the current study we assessed penile sensitivity in adult men by comparing peripheral nerve function of the penis across circumcision status. Materials and Methods: A total o…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 03:03 PM
1

The alternative is that might makes right. Were the Nazis right or wrong? Hmmm….their laws said it was ok to oppress Jews, looks like secular laws are not equal to morality. You lose.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:58 PM
-1

Because studies show no difference, that’s how. Maybe your dick is special in some way, that’s possible, but how would YOU know?
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:57 PM
-5

Removing a hymen has no putative medical benefits. Circumcision does. Whether they merit doing the procedure routinely is quite arguable, I am indifferent to the practice.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:54 PM
1

The studies are available to you on google scholar. I have been down this road and I’m not doing this. Look up “sexual function after circumcision “. Look up “penile sensitivity after circumcision”. Look up “acceptance of circumcision to lower rates of HIV transmission in Africa”. There are studies all over the place, even studies of penile sensitivity. I’m not doing dueling citations, done that too many times. Boring tedious and gets nowhere with radical intactivists.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:53 PM
1

Chopping off a finger is nothing like circumcision. The studies are available to you on google scholar. I have been down this road and I’m not doing this. Look up “sexual function after circumcision “. Look up “penile sensitivity after circumcision”. Look up “acceptance of circumcision to lower rates of HIV transmission in Africa”. There are studies all over the place, even studies of penile sensitivity. I’m not doing dueling citations, done that too many times. Boring tedious and gets nowhere w…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:52 PM
0

Chopping off a finger is nothing like circumcision. The studies are available to you on google scholar. I have been down this road and I’m not doing this. Look up “sexual function after circumcision “. Look up “penile sensitivity after circumcision”. Look up “acceptance of circumcision to lower rates of HIV transmission in Africa”. There are studies all over the place, even studies of penile sensitivity. I’m not doing dueling citations, done that too many times. Boring tedious and gets nowhere w…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:52 PM
-1

All opinions are transcended by God’s moral law. The problem is to discern the moral law.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:48 PM
1

I did not say any such thing. I said, there is a moral Law that transcends human opinions and culture.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:47 PM
-4

That’s all false and belied by actual studies. I’m sorry you feel that way but you’re fine.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:46 PM
-2

Did I say that? I did not. I am saying that there is a standard of right and wrong that transcends cultural opinions.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:38 PM
-2

How could you say that the feeling is different? That makes no sense. Studies of actual men who know life before and after circumcision are quite happy circumcised. That’s what studies show. Look them up.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:37 PM
-2

That’s not the point. The point is that all morality is religiously based given that morality is simply a belief system that exists outside of scientific inquiry. “Who are you to tell me that I can’t steal? Rape? Write graffiti on walls?” You’re using the argument that “might makes right”. Using that idea, the Weimar Republic was just fine and you can’t say otherwise. Using that logic, slavery or child sacrifice would be ok as long as society agreed to it. So silly.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:35 PM
0

There are many adult men circumcised as adults. They have been studied in actual studies. They’re happy. I’m pretty sure that Muslims and Jews who were circumcised as children have dicks that work just fine, else they wouldn’t be here.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:32 PM
-23

Yeah, doesn’t apply. Ask any circumcised male if his dick works. Ask any adult circumcised as an adult if his dick works the same as before if not better. It does.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:30 PM
-5

Separation of church and state means that the state can’t dictate to religion lol. The fact is that all laws impose someone’s morality on others, so all laws are religious in some sense. You just like your religion to be imposed.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:27 PM
-35

That’s a better argument, lack of consent. But “mutilation” is nonsense. Adults are circumcised as adults and guess what, they are not mutilated lol. So histrionic thou art.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:25 PM
-54

Circumcision is not the same as female genital mutilation, but you knew that.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:17 PM
-11

Which means that religious people can circumcise if they want to. It would also mean that any law that imposes morality of any kind would be illegitimate in your world-view. Stealing? “Thou shall not steal” is a religious idea, can’t have that! If you want to impose your religion on people, like saying “thou shall not circumcise thy boys”, you’re ok with that.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:15 PM
11

Nobody knows what exactly they are claiming, so it’s hard to help you. A haircut for a man is different from a haircut for a woman.
/r/MensRights07/06/23 07:06 PM
3

In big cities you don’t help a dying person, a person being raped, a person being mugged. You step over them. It’s awful what our cities have become.
/r/MensRights07/06/23 06:12 PM
-26

The only ppl who care are brainwashed into victimhood politics.
/r/MensRights06/06/23 12:40 AM
1

So no, you’re not a college graduate. I knew that.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 10:40 PM
1

Are you quite finished? You have no arguments at this point. Are you a college graduate? Just curious.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 10:37 PM
1

You project your hatred quite well. You started and ended with insults. That’s all you have.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 09:40 PM
1

Your identity is a problem for you, but plenty of your kind have gotten therapy and come to love themselves. Just give it a try.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 09:25 PM
2

No, I use woman as a biological term. You use fake insults about a group of men who never harmed anybody, that’s rather pathetic.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 09:14 PM
1

You’re a woman, I’m a man, and have a wife and children. So not incel.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 06:57 PM
0

Gender roles exist naturally. I’d be willing to bet that 98% of the world’s population over history existed in a cultural milieu that had specified gender roles with men as “bread winners” in general and women as homemakers in general. Ever study a lion pride? Yeah, the males know their roles, and so do the females. Don’t be a female unless you are one.
/r/MensRights05/06/23 02:39 AM
1

Division of labor just makes sense. Most companies don’t divide all responsibilities equally, they are divided according to personal preferences and abilities. House work is no different. My wife is not getting out a ladder to change a light bulb in the soffit of the house. Ain’t happening.
/r/MensRights04/06/23 01:21 PM
1

No artificial sperm, but there are sperm banks and plenty of men who would donate, even with boots on their necks.
/r/MensRights01/06/23 06:28 PM
2

Reaching across the aisle is asking to get bit, some people embrace and pick at their wounds to keep them from healing. They want to hate you.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 10:33 PM
1

Not a bad idea. Men are generally more aggressive and are more likely to be successful in suicide attempts than women, but it’s still a great idea to look at how to reduce suicide rates.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 01:30 PM
1

We know that men die younger due to trauma and suicide and at birth. My point is let’s look at the causes and not whine about things like jumping off bridges in a wing suit kind of deaths, let’s DO look at prostate cancer death rates, by all means.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:54 PM
1

Trauma-related deaths lower male life expectancy. Taking risks is risky, who knew? A better metric would be life expectancy for men vs women once they reach age 65 or more and stratify that according to health-only, and not accidents and suicides.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:45 PM
1

There is no racial bias, if you look at stats that compare “apples to apples”, Whites are no less likely to be “killed by cop” than Blacks are. As for men vs women, I’d bet the same thing is true. Men commit more crimes and more violent crimes and are a bigger threat to police than women are. This is not a men’s rights issue. We have real fish to fry, we don’t need to pretend that violent street crime is not predominantly committed by men.
/r/MensRights31/05/23 12:37 PM
1

Agree with that. Maybe I said it wrong?
/r/MensRights29/05/23 11:08 PM
-4

A father should support his children financially. If women want equality, then the responsibility should be split evenly. I am against equality if equality means dividing everything equally, that’s not possible to do. Women are not equally qualified to be soldiers for example. They are equal in other areas.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:12 PM
-3

Oh I agree about the lack of respect, and I agree that men are getting screwed big time. I’m just saying that traditional roles allowed for boundaries and respect to be accorded to men, even as men shouldered the responsibilities of protecting hearth and home and providing. The problem is feminism.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:10 PM
-6

Child support might be structured wrong, but in principle it makes sense.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 05:04 PM
-5

I was at Mass this morning and a large group of Philippine immigrants sang “God Bless America” for the closing hymn. What a beautiful group of people they were. They appreciate what America did to save the Philippines in WW2. That appreciation for what others did for you is an important part of culture. You did not create yourself, you did not raise yourself, you did not invent America or make it a wonderful homeland. You sound like an entitled person. As for your family, there is no doubt that …
/r/MensRights29/05/23 04:55 PM
1

She’s crazy as hell. What a witch.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 04:28 PM
49

Agreed. My wife once flipped another driver off, and I told her “don’t do that!” She can do her own fighting if she wants to, but I’m not going to help her. Men instinctively know that road rage can get ugly in a hurry; women take advantage of the fact that men can’t punch them. If a woman wants to act like a man, then she can deal with the results like a man.
/r/MensRights23/05/23 07:59 PM
51

Anti White is the acceptable prejudice now.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 03:07 PM
6

True. Good point. But it’s on life support.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 02:34 PM
0

Could be that you need surgery but you don’t have insurance. That’s a tough one. Neurosurgeons get sued all the time, “nobody” (there could be somebody) wants to take on that risk for free.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 02:15 PM
40

Chivalry is dead, and feminism killed it.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:31 PM
0

Is surgery for a herniated disc an option in your case?
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:07 PM
1

Your diagnosis could be helpful maybe.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:06 PM
7

True. Good point.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 11:55 AM
12

If money is involved, you can be a “dirty old man” and that’s ok with them. Just show them the money.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 11:53 AM
76

Women want to both exploit men’s sexual interests (onlyfans eg), and pretend that they are negatively triggered by that sexual interest (how dare you stare at my obviously exposed cleavage). It’s pathetic.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 11:19 AM
3

No, it’s because there is no term for female incels.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:55 AM
3

Why is it ok then to pick on male incels and not female ones?
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:41 AM
2

You’re a troll. You’re a male, I can tell.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:32 AM
4

Totally sexist and related.
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:30 AM
3

How would that be true? Have you counted or looked at surveys?
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:30 AM
6

Are there female incels? If not, why not? Because there are females who don’t get men too, why is that term only used against men?
/r/MensRights20/05/23 04:22 AM
-17

I don’t know all the reasons that ppl do it, but a guy whose dad had him circumcised and has no apparent sexual dysfunction (not “oh shit my orgasms could have been super orgasmic, like really out of this world gnarly stratospheric orgasmic”) needs to leave his dad the hell alone and be happy that he’s really just fine and normal and gonna ok.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 07:20 PM
-35

You think you’ve been done wrong but you have not, good gawd the histrionics from these anti circ people is just like the feminists. Let’s stop this shit on this site. I hate feminism, but crazy intactivists are just the same. What the fuck is going on?
/r/MensRights18/05/23 04:30 PM
2

Washington Post is the worst for that. I won’t read their crap anyway.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 11:36 AM
-5

Enjoy.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 03:10 AM
-3

Look up in ‘google scholar’: “sexual function after adult circumcision “. There are review articles there. Look up Cochrane review of circumcision. I used regular google. I’m not going to argue with people about this again, fanatics are fanatics and data means nothing to them. Do your own research. But it’s all right there on google scholar.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 03:10 AM
-3

I just went through a shit ton of back and forth with about 10 people on another post about this. I can link the whole putrid thing, I’m not doing all that shit again. I’m not going to argue with fanatics.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 02:55 AM
-5

Studies of adult men circumcised as adults prove that you are correct. The intactivists are very emotional and irrational.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 02:03 AM
-1

Lol. PPOs came into vogue due to changes in the law in the 1980s. Female circumcision was not a cultural phenomenon in America. You found two goofballs who promoted it for a couple patients. Ok, eye roll time.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 10:47 PM
1

I can’t tell from that citation what number of people we are talking about. This author merely states that a “doctor so and so” advocated the procedure in this patient, and a “doctor so and so” advocated circumcision in that patient for these reasons, but I can’t get the full article, and I see no attempt to put numbers on this at all. Suffice it to say that some women might have been “circumcised” in these United States of America, but I see nothing about actual numbers or rates or medical soci…
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:41 PM
0

She’s worried that simply by virtue of being circumcised that his sexuality was affected. But unless he had an acute complication that is VISIBLE, he is fine. For millennia (not just centuries) men have been circumcised and have reproduced just fine. If there were large numbers of complications, they haven’t shown up in studies, nor have cultures abandoned the procedure, which you would think would happen since men are doing most of the cutting and men aren’t real fond of fucked up dickery.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:27 PM
0

Ok that’s wonderful. That is a straw man as far as I am concerned, because I am not arguing for or advocating against routine circumcision. I am SAYING, this girl’s brother is fine, his life is not ruined, his dick is not ruined, and his sexuality will be unaffected. Because that’s what the STUDIES SHOW! Dammit I wish ppl would pay attention.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:10 PM
-1

That is all fine and dandy. My point is that such studies yielded the result that circumcision is accepted by adult men quite well and they do not feel mutilated or sexually altered. Good grief this gets tiresome arguing the wrong stuff. I am NOT advocating for or against the procedure for HIV transmission reduction OR for routine neonatal circumcision. How many fucking times do I have to say this shit?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:06 PM
1

I call BS. Citation?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 08:01 PM
0

Gee, I don’t feel like I’m coping. Maybe I’m coping without knowing it lol.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 06:13 PM
0

Female genital mutilation was NEVER practiced in any significant degree in the West or in America. I know of no medical organizations that would ever allow that or do that. Whether or not insurance cos were strong-armed into “covering “ the procedure for certain immigrant populations, I don’t know. But to claim that it was common is absolute crap.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 06:09 PM
0

Well then show me your so-called unbiased studies that show that circumcision leads to sexual dysfunction or loss of sexual pleasure. Such studies don’t exist. Many health organizations are promoting adult circumcision in Africa to lower rates of HIV transmission. These are large medical NGOs and the WHO and they seem to believe that circumcision is well-tolerated and accepted based on studies of thousands of adult men.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 06:07 PM
-1

Nice theories, belied by real world evidence and studies.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 06:02 PM
-1

Explain the studies. Adult men who are circumcised as adults are quite happy and notice no difference. The aggregate data of thousands of men shows that. Stomp and scream all you want to, I provided data and studies. You intactvists have lots of emotions but no studies or data.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 03:54 PM
-1

I know that there are nerves. However, it functionally and clinically acts like excess skin. See how that works? It does not have extra special super sensation powers. Studies show that. Actual studies of sensation testing, and in real Life. Real human adult males notice no difference after adult circumcision. Don’t argue with a man who has facts, when you have nothing. The composite of available studies have been reviewed and that’s the result. Circumcised men do not have any numbness. This is …
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:09 PM
0

And they grow up to be impotent and unable to have sex?! Weird, considering that they are here. So they have sexual dysfunction but nobody knows. Hmmm….
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:56 AM
0

Lol. The West has never not condemned FGM.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:34 AM
0

Reality? Let’s hear your perfect prospective, randomized, controlled trials. Not your propaganda, real trials that are superior to the ones we currently have. If all these men have been mutilated, where are they? Why aren’t they on TV? Where are the human rights groups trotting out men whose lives were ruined by being circumcised?! Why can’t you find hundreds of adult males in Israel whose lives are ruined?! Where are these men who suffer in silence?? Why would modern Jewish men do a procedure t…
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:34 AM
1

The studies are the studies. They’re all over google scholar. Cochrane review looked at them. Are you smarter than the Cochrane review people?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:26 AM
1

For 3000 years men have been doing this to each other yet not knowing this! It’s amazing. 3000 years and culture couldn’t figure this out. Interesting.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:25 AM
1

Show the data to the world. Cochrane review ppl and all the health experts in Africa need to know this! Immediately!
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:22 AM
1

Well why don’t you write the Cochrane review ppl and tell them your data lol. I’m sure they’d get a good laugh.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 01:21 AM
-1

Ridiculous. Utter nonsense. No studies suggest that adults circumcised as adults notice any difference. Good grief. Besides, men circumcised as infants enjoy sex quite well, how ecstatic can it be?! How would they know what they’re missing?
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:55 AM
0

Not buying into data from biased anti-circumcision people. Cochrane review is the best. Sorry.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:36 AM
0

You have zero proof of bad effects.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:01 AM
0

There is zero evidence of negative sexual effects.
/r/MensRights17/05/23 12:00 AM
1

Didn’t see anything about negative effects of circumcision. Fail.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:55 PM
0

You made the claim that circumcision leads to sexual dysfunction. Show me the studies, bud.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:47 PM
0

Show me your studies, bud!
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:47 PM
0

It said what it said, bud. Harvard doesn’t lie with press releases. The best available data, bud. Where is yours?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:46 PM
0

Show me your studies, bud. Let Cochrane know about this new data bud.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:42 PM
0

The studies literally showed that circumcision is well-tolerated with low complications and general acceptance with no loss of sexual function. Deal with it, bud.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:42 PM
1

There is no new evidence, bud. Let’s see your RCTs, bud, that would change these ideas! Why would they change, bud? What new data is there, bud?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:40 PM
1

Let’s see your studies, bud. With thousands of patients, bud, and Cochrane reviews, bud. Let’s see you get Harvard medical school to change their recommendations, bud.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:38 PM
0

The best studies, genius. All are considered the best available evidence, and reviewed by Harvard Medical School and Cochrane. You have your feelings, I have evidence. I’m sorry about your feelings.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:34 PM
0

Cochrane is not bullshit. You’re on shaky ground saying that crap. Cochrane is literally the best source for MDs to look up evidence-based medical protocols.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:32 PM
0

Cochrane review. I trust Cochrane reviews above all other sources. They get things very well, and doctors often seek out their articles for evidence-based protocols: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2/full
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:40 PM
1

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/widespread-male-circumcision-could-prevent-more-than-a-million-hiv-infections/ I could do this all day. This is kind of fun! You have nothing.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:37 PM
0

There are so many articles that review this question that I have a plethora of citations. Cochrane reviews are the best of the best, and they say that circumcision could lower HIV transmission rates. You have nothing. Look up Cochrane review of that question yourself.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:36 PM
-1

Stories or studies? Big difference. I have heard no such stories. I have read studies.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:10 PM
0

Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ye Tian, Wei Liu, Jian-Zhong Wang, Romel Wazir, Xuan Yue, Kun-Jie Wang Asian journal of andrology 15 (5), 662, 2013 This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eli…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:09 PM
2

Oh yeah, I’ve been banned by them numerous times. That’s a percent sign of what we are talking about.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:07 PM
0

Brian J Morris senior author: Conclusion The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review Brian J Morris, John N Krieger The journal of sexual medicine 10 (11), 2644-2657, 2013 Facts. They do not care about your feelings. That’s a review of many studies. There are plenty more.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:01 PM
2

Agreed. “We” can have actual disagreements between us, “they” circle the wagons. My belief is that conservatives are motivated by the search for truth, liberals are motivated by power dynamics. Of course I’m biased, but I came at this bias through experience. Can I prove the assertion? No, and therein lies the problem.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:54 PM
-1

So Jews are ignorant about circumcision? And you’re the enlightened one? Good to know. I cited studies. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:50 PM
1

There are lots of studies showing acceptance of adult circumcision. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review Brian J Morris, John N Krieger The journal of sexual medicine 10 (11), 2644-2657, 2013 Introduction Circumcision of males is commonly carried out worldwide for reasons of health, medical need, esthetics, tradition, or religion. Whether circumcision impairs or improves male sexual function or pleasure is controversial. Aims The study …
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:48 PM
0

There’s this study: Examining penile sensitivity in neonatally circumcised and intact men using quantitative sensory testing Jennifer A Bossio, Caroline F Pukall, Stephen S Steele The Journal of Urology 195 (6), 1848-1853, 2016 Conclusions: Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for penile sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the foreskin during neonatal circumcision. Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sen…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:46 PM
-1

Faux indignation? I’m not indignant at all. My point is that the culture with the greatest and longest history of circumcision does not find it to be mutilating in the least. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:41 PM
1

There are lots of similar studies, and that one cites that fact. Deal with it. Just because you found a rebuttal, I can find rebuttals to your rebuttals. The fact is that public health agencies in Africa are promoting circumcision to lower rates of STDs. They take it as a given that studies are sufficient to show proof of concept. It doesn’t prove that neonatal circumcision is morally correct or necessary, but it certainly makes the case for circumcision not being “mutilation” for fuck sake.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:38 PM
-1

I did not argue for routine neonatal circumcision. I said, now pay attention, see if you can handle this, I know that you’re very emotional: it does not cause dysfunction or damage to sensation. Wow! Did your head explode? Look at studies. There are entire medical organizations that are recommending circumcision to lower rates of STD transmission. There are putative medical benefits. Adult circumcision has very high acceptance rates. I don’t advocate for it or against it. Now go take a nap.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 08:27 PM
1

You’re fine. Take your victimhood and reject it. No study shows what you’re claiming. Life is not fun when you create your own victimization. And that’s a huge contribution to you if you embrace it. And no, I will not leave if someone else engages me. The science just doesn’t support your beliefs.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 07:53 PM
1

Ok, let’s tell the kid how violated and ruined he is, that won’t have any dramatic impact on him/s. All you intactivists need therapy it seems to me. You’re just like the feminists who think they are victims.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 07:22 PM
0

Contra that study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296667/
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:43 PM
0

That abstract does not say that patients were found to be unaccepting or unhappy with the procedure, it questions whether HIV transmission rates were really lowered by the amounts claimed.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:32 PM
-3

Look at the studies. I know that you want to believe something based on using your own pre-conceived ideas, but I like facts and evidence. If this procedure, that has been around for millennia, caused all those horrible side effects, don’t you think that the Jews would have figured that out by now? Are Jews stupid? Ignorant? Why are they happy? Shouldn’t all the men be suicidal?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:29 PM
-1

I never once argued for doing it as a routine for neonates. Not once. Pay attention, words have meanings. I am telling this person that her brother is just fine, no worries.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:25 PM
-4

Could you try to be more original than the old “just tell me that you….without telling me….” routine? It’s an internet staple and very old. As for my statements, common sense would tell you that if neonatal circumcision led to severe sexual side effects, we would have known that for the last 3,000 years, but somehow, some way, circumcised mankind has managed to reproduce just fine, and the Jews are still with us, and they seem to be happy enough. If sex could be any more pleasurable than circumc…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:24 PM
0

False. A study was done of African men to lower rates of HIV transmission, so they were not selected for pre-operative problems. So your premise is false. I am not advocating for anything. I am saying that it doesn’t matter. Big difference.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 04:35 PM
-1

Live human beings who were circumcised as adults are “faulty studies”? I love the faulty study claim, all the anti circ ppl claim “faulty studies”. Very large studies were done on adult African men to “lower the rates of HIV transmission “. Whether that was a good idea or not, they were done, and acceptance rates were very very high. In addition, tactile sensation studies were done on neonates and there’s no apparent difference. Histology is not clinical relevance.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:57 PM
-1

I said that several times. Histology, however, is not “clinical relevance”. Studies of real people in real life show no difference. How many times do I have to repeat the same fucking facts?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:41 PM
0

The postop med list would not include anything about the injection of local anesthetic, so what exactly are you claiming? Writing out a med list has nothing to do with injection of lidocaine at the time of the procedure. Did you watch the entire procedure? Do you KNOW that they did not inject lidocaine?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:34 PM
0

Who did the circumcision? Because that’s really poor form. ACOG and AAP call for local anesthetic to be given. I would ask the charge nurse about that. The doctor who did that needs to be educated about that.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 03:29 PM
2

A person asked about her brother. Her brother is fine. His life will be fine, as many millions of men have had perfectly happy sex lives being circumcised as neonates. Maybe their orgasms were not intense enough to send them to heaven, maybe that’s a good thing, maybe they would have gone into orgasmic orbit and had heart attacks, who knows?! (That’s sarcastic, don’t lose your mind). Studies (large ones) have shown that adult males who were sexually active and circumcised as adults did not notic…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:31 PM
2

Look at the studies. You can fail to see whatever you want to, but it doesn’t make it objectively true. Skin is skin, the foreskin is claimed to be histologically “special”, but histology is not the same as clinically sensitive or relevant. Men circumcised as neonates are quite happy sexually, maybe they are missing something, but studies say the opposite. So, accept reality please. You can oppose the procedure ON OTHER GROUNDS, that’s fine, but you cannot call it mutilation. What other grounds?…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:05 PM
9

Thanks Joe Biden. Libtards don’t give a shit, on one hand they want “human rights”, on the other they want “other cultures” to be autonomous, except when they don’t, which is never clear.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:47 PM
0

Is removing wisdom teeth mutilation? I fail to see how excess skin, no matter how sensitive, that is not clinically relevant to functioning is “necessary”. It is not missed by its owners when it is removed as adults. It is not objectively more sensitive, studies show that. What is occasionally necessary is adult circumcision for complications of having foreskin. It’s not common, but it happens. It’s not a reason to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, which I believe is driven mostly by wome…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:45 PM
1

It is not mutilation. It is not necessary for routine practice. I did not argue for it or against it. I argued facts.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:15 PM
1

Studies show what they show: no loss of function or sensation. I know that bothers you but I like to live in the real world.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:13 PM
-9

True. I did not argue for neonatal circumcision did I?! Details matter. I made very specific claims.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 01:00 PM
1

What function are you worried about being lost? Studies show that it has no clinical relevance as far as sexual function is concerned.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 12:11 PM
2

Ha! Yeah, I’m not really a big fan. I guess you guys like your football a lot, I never played so it goes over my head.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:56 AM
2

Ok stay and let’s talk some more. How do you think the new rules in baseball are working out?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:54 AM
2

I deleted nothing.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:51 AM
2

Ok, wonderful, now run along! It’s all good. 😁
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:51 AM
2

Here we go. Clinical studies, actual real world results, and even “pin prick” testing, shows NO LOSS OF SENSATION. I think of foreskin as excess skin. The emotional wrecks here get exercised about the Meissner corpuscles that are removed. Umkay, histology vs clinical real world results? Pay attention: good studies of sexually active adult men circumcised as adults show no loss of sensation or function. I know you don’t want that to be true, but I don’t try to make things be true, I accept truth …
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:49 AM
2

You didn’t take responses to your questions as an answer, and you ignored the data that you presented. I’m not sure how that isn’t obvious.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:41 AM
1

Studies show no loss of sensation. Emotionally uncontrolled rage mobs here deny the studies. I don’t know how to respond to that. Millions of circumcised men have had happy and re-productive lives for many many centuries. If you want to worry that they could have had even better, multi orgasmic, out of this world sex lives, go ahead, agonize yourself into a frothy frenzy. I’m quite content and functional, thanks for the concern though.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:40 AM
-1

No.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:37 AM
1

If you want a crusade, crusade about prostate cancer research funding, or the rates of death that increased after screening for the disease was down-played.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:37 AM
-5

When was it done? Who did it? Because it sounds like no local anesthetic was given, or it was not effective and they did it anyway. Poor form.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:26 AM
-2

No loss of function or sensation, that’s why.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:25 AM
4

You have a persistence that is irrational.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:25 AM
-10

Local anesthetic is given in America currently, and is done routinely. I am not advocating for routine circumcision. I am telling someone that her brother is going to be ok.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:07 AM
2

Did you look at the rates? Maybe that has something to do with screening guidelines?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:05 AM
2

Go get tested. The rest of us are not concerned about getting HP fucking V-related cancers.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:03 AM
3

Rates of cervical cancer vs male HPV-related cancers? Men at high risk can certainly get tested. The rest of us don’t need screening. Is that ok with you?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:00 AM
-37

It’s not mutilation. It’s also not necessary. Adult men who get circumcised as adults notice no problems at all, no change in sexual function. Some of the MRAs here lose their minds when told that. I would not worry about it, but the emotional wrecks here (they accuse feminists of being emotional, it’s pathetic) will self-explode their heads on me in 3, 2, 1…..
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:55 AM
3

Pap smears look at cells for cancer. Men do not get cervical cancer. HPV is a virus that can “cause” mucosal cancers in both men and women. Many (most) cervical cancers are “caused by” HPV. (Quotes to indicate that causation from viruses is not always the ONLY risk factor). I don’t think that this is a men’s rights issue.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:47 AM
1

Good points, agreed, thanks. The JD thing is silly in my opinion.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 02:13 AM
3

He was specific about the kinds of departments that he was against. He did not say that female PhDs in the “hard sciences” (hard meaning scientific and not meaning “difficult”) did not work as hard as the men.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:32 PM
2

He clearly was discussing PhDs, not law or Medicine. There are PhDs in many fields, a PhD in education is very different from one in chemistry.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:02 PM
1

Psychologists don’t give drugs. So I think that you’re “literally” wrong.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:01 PM
1

Ok bud, let’s borrow money, what’s the big deal? We will just print the stuff in the end. You guys are so predictable.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 06:32 PM
1

So printing money would be ok? Interesting. Let’s print money!
/r/MensRights15/05/23 06:01 PM
-5

You should have said “such as ‘you’”, not “such as ‘yourself’”.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 12:35 PM
1

Inflation affects purchasing power. The govt targets an inflation rate of 2-3%, which is compounded. That is a huge hidden tax. It’s almost like you’re ignorant.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:27 AM
1

Lol. The value of the dollar has eroded steadily for 60 plus years. You do know what inflation is, right Einstein?
/r/MensRights15/05/23 01:56 AM
1

What is available? We run deficits and have huge debts. Period. If you want to cut huge spending elsewhere, maybe you can “find the money”. How many times have we been promised that bullshit?
/r/MensRights15/05/23 01:10 AM
1

I’m pretty sure that it’s you who doesn’t understand economics.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 12:22 AM
1

Yeah ok. No, we don’t have trillions of dollars of debt, not at all. Inflation?! Pfffft….just print more money! Reee!
/r/MensRights14/05/23 03:43 PM
1

Well your idea is stupid on the face of it. Who is paying for these services? With what money? Who is the intended recipient? Everyone? Collectivism has worked for social services for exactly where and when?
/r/MensRights14/05/23 03:00 PM
22

It’s a great question. I think defining our terms might be useful. What is “feminism” is not an easy answer at all, just as “what is men’s rights” is not an easy answer either. Much of our debates are due to lack of definition as to what we are really arguing about! It would be comical if not so serious. Feminism is a pastiche of ideas and ideologies and prejudices that are often at variance with past political iterations of the “current thing”. I am not sure that we even know what “feminists” w…
/r/MensRights14/05/23 01:24 PM
1

“….vitamins which may lack in your diet”. Vitamin deficiencies cause very specific diseases that are identifiable from medical evaluations. Excess water-soluble vitamins go out in your urine. Excess fat soluble vitamins are toxic and cause disease.
/r/MensRights14/05/23 12:11 PM
1

Vitamins? Ffs. Modern humans get plenty of vitamins in normal daily diets. Vitamins don’t make you look like that guy no matter how much you exercise. They do nothing.
/r/MensRights14/05/23 12:00 PM
1

Everything should be free and then there won’t be any problems. Easy peasy. Can you please learn basic economics?
/r/MensRights14/05/23 08:25 AM
0

Naive much? Supplements don’t help. Steroids help.
/r/MensRights14/05/23 07:56 AM
1

No, religion determines whether you even want a family, or how that family would be structured, what your rights and responsibilities are vis-a-vis that family, whether it will be matriarchal or patriarchal or polyamorous or…..
/r/MensRights12/05/23 08:45 PM
52

Tell me that you look like this dude without steroids. I doubt it.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 08:43 PM
4

“All” cultural phenomena are religiously based. If I am Genghis Khan, I don’t give a fuck about family. If I’m Adolph Hitler, I want to fuck up your family. If I’m Joseph Epstein, I want to fuck your family. Etc. A Muslim might want four wives. A Christian is allowed only one wife. Etc.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 08:37 PM
128

A man doesn’t get that muscular without steroids, just sayin.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 07:32 PM
1

We were talking about families, yes? The very idea of a family is a religious construct to me. Marriage is a religious construct. They can be turned into a governmental contractual construct if people want to do that, but the results have been dismal.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 07:31 PM
3

No, I have not. My beliefs about “the family” are religious and not secular.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 07:08 PM
9

I’d say that is a bad thing for society, agreed, and it is not a good sign.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 04:29 PM
94

This can’t be good for a society to live this way. Families matter.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 11:55 AM
2

Biden manipulated you apparently. You do know that he has dementia? You do know that the economy sucks? The dollar has lost value? Inflation went crazy? Gas prices up?
/r/MensRights11/05/23 04:25 PM
76

No, hoping for every two hours.
/r/MensRights11/05/23 12:21 PM
3

That’s hate speech!! A girl can spread her legs without consequences if she wants to! What gives you the right to pretend that consequences are real?! Consequences should not be real and you know it! You’re a Troglodyte, a Neanderthal, a right-wing Cro-Magnon Man with an authoritarian streak, toxically masculine with sweaty balls. I just can’t even with you people, you make me wanna 🤮. (I think I literally, not figuratively, got this response pastiche from several of the whamen over at Feminism …
/r/MensRights10/05/23 06:49 PM
12

You’re doomed if that’s the way your fake “democratic” form of government is going to go.
/r/MensRights09/05/23 09:17 PM
6

What the hell?
/r/MensRights09/05/23 08:06 PM
11

BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutations are carried on chromosome 17 and 13 respectively (can be transmitted by both mom and/or dad) and such mutations increase the risk of several cancers (plural) for both men and women. The “women most affected” line applies here, men with BRCA 2 mutations are at risk for prostate, pancreatic, and breast cancers. So there could just as easily be a campaign that says “mom gave me prostate cancer”.
/r/MensRights09/05/23 10:40 AM
4

Well do you think that a man who did what Elizabeth Holmes did would be a sympathetic figure to the NYTs?
/r/MensRights08/05/23 10:56 AM
20

Lecturing men has gotten really old. Why don't women ever have to endure these public scoldings on how to treat men?
/r/MensRights06/05/23 11:54 AM
3

Good point about body shaming men, the double standards are obvious.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:26 AM
1

Tax rates are ridiculous. If you disincentivize work, you get less of it.
/r/MensRights05/05/23 12:20 AM
7

You paint with very broad brushstrokes. Your stereotypes are not completely correct. My conservatism is not misogynistic, nor is my dislike for all things “trans” related to a phobia. Let’s prescind from labels for a second. There has generally been in Western societies a double standard regarding depictions and exposure of male and female genitalia. We see statues of naked men, but almost none with depictions of female genitalia per se, even when the statues are “naked”. Feminists have complain…
/r/MensRights04/05/23 07:26 PM
13

Feminist sites kick people off at any hint of disagreement with a post there. Feminist echo chambers. Here you can disagree and not get kicked off, at least not as easily. The censorship on Reddit is oppressive, especially at feminist sites.
/r/MensRights01/05/23 09:55 AM
0

“Get an Uber”? What the hell? Get a freaking Maserati more like. Come on.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 08:58 PM
1

Every detail? I saw enough detail, and heard enough from his other critics to safely conclude that he’s a control freak azz. You can do the hero worship thing if you wanna, but he’s an azz. Nobody does that kind of crap to a spouse without being a genuine prick. Why should a woman in advanced pregnancy walk the dogs and give them their medicine?! Why wouldn’t she take the car to get some fucking food? “Obedience”?! What the hell? She sounded desperate to me, kind of sad really.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 08:14 PM
1

No, she doesn’t. I don’t boss her around and she doesn’t boss me around. It’s a prescription for a happy marriage.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 08:00 PM
1

Sin? Why does sin have to be invoked? The guy is a control freak and a jerk. Get a second damn car, I have five of them. My wife has a shit ton of control over our finances and lives, I don’t control her like she’s my property. I certainly wouldn’t make her take care of the dogs at 8 months pregnant.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 07:47 PM
2

Most ppl think Crowder was being an azz. Who makes his wife take care of the dogs when she’s 8 mos pregnant? It’s nonsense, you’re nonsense. He can afford a fleet of cars, he’s a freak.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 04:31 PM
2

You don’t make a wife obey you like a dog. If that’s not clear to you, then you can’t be helped. I am a servant to my wife, and she is a servant to me. We don’t obey each other.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:57 PM
-1

Apparently you are a control freak too.
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:50 PM
1

Disobedience lol? Come on. Good grief I’m a traditionalist to the max, but “obedient” to walking a dog and giving it medicine while pregnant? What?!
/r/MensRights30/04/23 03:34 PM
-2

I think that his worst few minutes might be a bad way to judge him, but if you take what others have said about him, and then listen to how measured and controlled his pregnant wife was, compared to how he was, and the fact that he was quite irrationally demanding, and only has one freaking car despite his wealth, and he seems like a real dick. Twice she said “I love you”, and he didn’t reciprocate at all. He whined like a child that he couldn’t go anywhere while she went shopping for food or so…
/r/MensRights30/04/23 02:11 PM
6

Thanks. Not sure why you’re getting any negative reactions, but Reddit can be a toxic place lol. Hang in there and thanks.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 10:22 PM
0

Fail. If I put it up to pee, I’m not putting it down. There’s a good chance that the next person wants it up; or down. Move your own seat. Women don’t get special privileges, sorry.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 06:42 PM
1

Wait. If there is no lid, but only a seat, it’s logical for men to lift it so they don’t pee on it. When they are finished, they leave it up. Women can lower it. That way each party has to move the damn thing one time, fair is fair.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 06:35 PM
1

Maybe not.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 11:59 AM
5

I live in a house. In my house all my toilets have lids. At places of business in my locale, most toilets do not. If they do not, I’m not going to put the damn seat down after I urinate. Women don’t put the the damn seat up after they urinate, so I’m not putting the damn seat down. Now are you quite finished? You’re repeating yourself but nobody here agrees with you, that should be your first clue that, generally speaking, we think that public toilets don’t have lids, just as in the photo append…
/r/MensRights29/04/23 11:09 AM
14

See the photo? No lid. That’s typical.
/r/MensRights29/04/23 12:30 AM
16

The photo attached to this article shows a lid-less toilet. A toilet sans lid. I don’t know if that is the toilet in question. If your contention is that the seat should be closed if a lid is present, that’s a reasonable argument to make. In my experience most toilets in public do not have them. Their hinges break easily and cost more $ to maintain. The lady who wrote the article is crazy, she’s not the toilet police, and should mind her own business.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 11:30 PM
24

Ok, but public toilets generally don’t have lids, so your argument is moot. Invalid. Not germane.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 11:13 PM
64

Insane level of entitlement. Who decides that seat down is the default position? Why are women privileged in that regard? At work, I told the women that men have as much right to leave it up as they have to leave it down. The rule should be to leave it however the hell you wanna leave it, just don’t make a mess.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 09:45 PM
2

It’s all horseshit. Women have been sold a bill of goods convincing them that they will be happier having careers than having babies and raising them. Life is short. You only have a brief time on this earth. You can serve your career, serve your husband, serve your wife, serve your children, serve your ego, serve God, serve the State, serve your employees or employer, but you will serve something or somebody, just as Bob Dylan said. What you choose to serve determines who you are. Feminism prete…
/r/MensRights28/04/23 04:24 PM
13

Men will always be simps because “vagina”. Once you understand that, a lot of things become crystal clear. Competition between men, virtue signaling toward women, defending feminism, promoting women’s equality without upholding the same standards, allowing women to emasculate other men without defending other men, joking along with women about small dick energy, making derogatory comments about toxic masculinity, allowing women to invade men’s spaces without reciprocity, all of it is to ingratia…
/r/MensRights28/04/23 01:23 AM
1

Wait. Catholics are Christians. The Irish “troubles” are mostly over, and the British Protestants won the war. Northern Ireland belongs to Protestant Great Britain. The politics of that war transcended religion, it would be as if a predominantly Christian nation decided to annex Saudi Arabia. It would be called a religious war by critics, but in reality it would be a geopolitical war that divided along religion affiliations.
/r/MensRights28/04/23 12:35 AM
6

The Reddit feminist sites are toxic af. I can’t stand those people. The list of whining complaints never ends. And heaven forbid that you challenge their narrative of the day! Ruthless witches.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 03:21 PM
-1

Studies of adult males who get circumcised show high rates of acceptance, and very very low rates of change in sexual enjoyment. I’m sorry that fact bothers you. I want it to bother me too, I want to be a victim, I want to be unhappy. I really want all those things. I just can’t do it.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 12:18 AM
-2

Studies prove otherwise. I know that this crowd doesn’t like studies, you have your crazy narrative that’s impervious to facts. Just like the feminist crazies.
/r/MensRights25/04/23 12:16 AM
-3

That’s not true. There is no way to remove the clitoral hood and not affect sexual functioning.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 09:12 PM
-4

I’m pretty sure that you’re painting with a very broad brush, but you do like to exaggerate things in your very fevered mind.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:43 PM
-2

I think you all scream into a crazy echo chamber of shared delusions.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:41 PM
-1

Umkay, take your pulse. If what you claim is true, then Jews and Americans would have had many generations of damaged men. Yet such men have not come forward to put an end to the practice of ruining their lives. Entire generations of such men lived happily for centuries. It’s odd that they are so silent. Females who have been damaged are quite vocal in their distress and the practice of FGM has been isolated to very limited populations as a result. Very limited populations. Very. Limited.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:35 PM
3

Catholics do not practice circumcision as a ritual in any way, shape, or form. They choose it or not independently of religious reasons. Apparently you know nothing about the debates of the early Christian community on circumcision, Saint Paul decided that it’s not a part of the religion and not necessary for Christians, and that argument was adopted by general consensus of the new Gentile communities, who did not want circumcision. Catholic Europeans generally do not circumcise their infants.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:32 PM
-2

I know lots of circumcised males and they are not psychologically damaged or physically damaged in any way that I can see or that they claim, but maybe they are just too crazy and damaged to know that they are crazy and damaged? Interesting hypothesis.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:11 PM
-3

Able to achieve erection and ejaculate and have pleasure in the activity of ejaculating. Circumcised men have done this routinely and consistently for centuries. Define “mutilation”.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:06 PM
-1

No, I am saying that “female genital mutilation” is a useful and accurate term for what is done to female infants in some countries, including removal of the clitoral hood or any surgical intervention to close the labia. There is almost no surgery that you can do to a clitoris that removes tissue that is not mutilating in its effects, short of very small biopsy. I am saying that “circumcision” is an accurate and useful term for what is generally done to male neonates, the removal of the foreskin…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 07:04 PM
-2

It’s claiming that there should be no distinction in terms. So I won’t fuck off.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:58 PM
-1

Read the fucking title of the fucking original post. Read the use of the fucking “MGM” abbreviation as the term for male circumcision. I won’t fuck off.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:57 PM
-2

Studies don’t agree with that, but you’re welcome to believe that if you want. Circumcised males are quite fully sexually functional. Females who undergo what’s called “female circumcision” are not fully sexually functional.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:44 PM
1

There are objective sensitivity tests and subjective response reports. Men circumcised as adults in Africa noted no difference in sensitivity. I doubt very much that thinking that HIV prevention was part of the the null hypothesis would alter a man’s subjective pleasure in having sex, but if you want to make the claim that such men had some psychosomatic non alteration of sexual pleasure, I can’t prove you wrong, but it’s a strange idea. I’d be pretty pissed off if my dick was suddenly less sens…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 06:28 PM
-1

Fair enough, thanks. I saw enough studies about sensitivity to conclude that it makes no difference. There were good studies of that of men circumcised as adults who saw no difference. I appreciate your measured and rational response, thank you.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:36 PM
-8

Ok, maybe so, but FGM and male circumcision are not equivalent at all.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:34 PM
-1

Ok, but don’t equate it to FGM. Do you understand the plain meaning of words? You’re unhinged. Get hinged.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 05:33 PM
-8

Um, er, ok, look at the title of the OP. I guess plain language is not your forte. I guess using phrases like MGM and FGM are not creating equivalencies. I guess up is down in your world. Get your semicircular canals balanced.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:34 PM
-8

Your first paragraph makes sense. Your second starts with a tendentious word, “male genital mutilation”. It’s not mutilation, circumcised men have very functional penises, that claim by the anti circumcision crowd is the one that has been “debunked” from centuries of experience. As for the health benefits being “debunked”, both sides of the debate have studies that “debunk” each other. On balance, I’d say that the health benefits, if any, are minor and not a good reason to have a general cultura…
/r/MensRights24/04/23 04:31 PM
-5

The anti-circ crowd is very emotional about this issue, it’s a shared victimhood complex that is equal to the craziest of crazy feminists. It’s scary how activists create echo chambers of crazy ideas. But one man’s crazy is another man’s religion I suppose, only God knows truth from fiction in the final analysis.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:42 PM
0

Yeah I guess I’m talking about in America, my fault lol, I forget how international this site is.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:25 PM
-20

Wait. I did not say that FGM is not bad. I said, male circumcision is not equally bad. That’s my point and it’s not even close.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 03:24 PM
-1

I really don’t know why people do it, it’s obviously cultural and aesthetic for most people, and not religious. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that women are the main drivers of the practice, and that it is for aesthetic reasons. That seems to be something that could change rather quickly in society through changing norms; if most boys are not circumcised, then the minority circumcised will likely feel “odd” or out of place and the practice will diminish. People generally follow the crowd.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 02:47 PM
-41

Male circumcision is not at all an equivalent to female version. Don’t try to equate them.
/r/MensRights24/04/23 02:31 PM
1

Good sentiments, but “top-down” cultural change bothers me more than anything. A panel of experts can make unnatural love to themselves for all I care.
/r/MensRights23/04/23 03:47 PM
1

This is interesting. Saint Joan of Arc was accused of dressing like a man, that came up at her trial. She denied that she had any interest in dressing like a man except insofar as needed to go into battle. Sexual dimorphism behavior is as old as time, and our psychological need to maintain some sexual dimorphism boundaries is inherent and can’t be waved away as a relic of our past. It’s vital to our biology. Feminists pretended that invading male spaces was just fine; but reverse the roles, and …
/r/MensRights23/04/23 03:00 PM
1

If you truly have a traumatic hydrocele and varicocele, then you might need end up needing surgery, and she will be liable if you pursue it with an attorney. I would also consider suing the sheriff’s dept. I would pursue it if you need surgery. The hydrocele could resolve; the varicocele could have existed prior to the trauma. Ask your urologist what he/she thinks.
/r/MensRights23/04/23 02:10 PM
1

Men compete with each other, women do as well, but in politics women are united. The sisterhood is real. Many men in politics are simps who wanna get laid.
/r/MensRights23/04/23 09:58 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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