TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

anonymous3182 Archive

View 0 posts and 126 comments by anonymous3182 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)
8

My quality of life and quality of sex would be higher if I was uncircumcised. So why should your preference override mine? Especially when people are left uncircumcised they can choose to be circumcised as adults.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:18 AM
13

The best interest of the child would be leaving his genitals intact.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 07:57 PM
7

Personally I'm upset because I was cut so tightly that sex hurt. And after that got better I soon didn't feel anything during sex. I only tracked it down to circumcision after that 'weird' classmate openly opposed circumcision. How many men have problems that they think is 'normal'?
/r/MensRights01/05/17 01:30 AM
6

This isn't government intrusion, it's government protection of infants that can not protect themselves. Adults are free to get a circumcision if they want. And I don't think anyone has the right to practice their religion by cutting someone else's genitals.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 01:17 AM
5

I'm circumcised and have had several problems with it. First my penile skin was so tight sex would hurt. Then later I would feel nothing during sex because everything became desensitized. If adults want to get circumcised, all the power to them. I didn't choose this and now have to attempt a time intensive foreskin restoration.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 08:35 PM
6

Apparently I need a /s
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:11 PM
10

We'll gladly stop discussing it when infant circumcision has ended.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 04:56 PM
9

Yes, all those prudes in Europe that don't have sex because the guys are intact /s
/r/MensRights30/04/17 04:53 PM
11

Your foreskin protects the glan's from rubbing against the cotton underwear and being exposed and essentially drying out. It has a gliding action during sex and keeps the moisture in the vagina. You can be happy with your circumcision. We're against cutting babies. They can choose when they're adults.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 04:51 PM
5

For hard medical data and stats the Canadian Paediatrics Society has everything laid out extremely well. See table 1, but the whole paper is informative and not too long. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision This paper covers a lot of talking points: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896
/r/MensRights27/04/17 05:38 AM
3

Consider that your​ parents are also victims of this asinine propaganda. They've been convinced it's the right thing to do and unfortunately one someone's mind is made up that's very hard to change.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 10:31 PM
6

Unfortunately trivialized isn't the word I'd pick. I've recently chosen 'vigorously adopted and pushed' because it's not just an accepted and trivialized, it's pushed.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 10:24 PM
–

We use grand as slang too verbally, but I've never seen it written as 'g', it's always written 'k'. Does the US write both g and k? Which is more common?
/r/MensRights10/04/17 06:06 PM
–

We usually use k to mean thousand in Canada. Does the US not do this? E.g. $1k is $1000
/r/MensRights07/04/17 06:00 PM
1

Visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MGTOW05/04/17 03:07 AM
3

Give the manual methods a try. Just stretch when you get up, washroom breaks, and before going to sleep. Not too much work and it'll help.
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 07:24 PM
2

Should we be ok with honour killings because it is a religious practice? Of course not. There is a point where we do not accept something just because it is someone's religious practice. Usually that line​ is where it affects someone else.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 05:10 PM
10

If you're thinking of the AAP's statement, they say "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.". So they don't even recommend it. As for overruling consent, vaccines are about 97% effective which is magnitudes better than the circumcision stats. Vaccines don't remove a body part and protect against debilitating or lethal diseases. The best circumcision has is some STI protection, but it'…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 03:57 AM
2

Hey coachbradb, still waiting for your response to real data https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/60tem1/oh_thats_okay_then/dfapq5v
/r/MensRights26/03/17 05:01 PM
4

You'll see arguments about health benefits of circumcision, but when you see the hard stats they're terrible. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision see table 1.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 05:07 PM
11

Many people, myself included, think it leads to diminished sexual pleasure because it removes skin rich in nerve endings, removes the gliding action of the foreskin, and removes protection of the glans. If there is any ambiguity in this area, we should default to leaving people's genitals alone.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:19 AM
3

Hey coachbradb, you never responded to the data I posted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/60tem1/oh_thats_okay_then/dfapq5v
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:00 AM
4

I looked at the AAP and found they do not recommend circumcision. "The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.". I also looked at the Mayo clinic but unfortunately it has little information, it basically amounts to a FAQ page. I prefer hard data and I've found the Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 06:28 AM
2

That's good to hear. I'll add that if there is any ambiguity in this area, we should default to leaving people's genitals alone.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 06:03 PM
3

Unless there is a medical need for circumcision it shouldn't be done. When I look at the data the benefits are so slim they effectively don't exist for the individual person and we shouldn't do medical procedures to someone unless there is a clear and immediate benefit. And to overrule someone's right to body self autonomy we need substantial benefits like we see with vaccines. Societal pressure is a terrible reason to start removing body parts without consent. Many people think it leads to dimi…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:53 PM
9

You should look at the actual numbers. The Canadian Paediatrics Society has a more informative position paper. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To ensure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal in…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 06:06 AM
5

This is a big part of the issue. If a baby is circumcised he can never choose to be uncircumcised. The best that can be done is this. You asked for people that wish they weren't circumcised, there they are. And look at the lengths they have to go to regain their body. It isn't wrong that they want to and are doing what they can. Also consider that you may even know these guys, it's​ not something you talk about to everyone.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 04:43 PM
8

Go visit r/foreskin_restoration to find men that don't like being circumcised. They are stretching the skin to grow enough to cover the glans.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 03:33 PM
9

Every bit is a step in the right direction. At least it will be an easy resource to point to.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 02:05 AM
6

The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the actual stats for the often heard benefits here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision, table 1. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. The stats are terrible.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 02:28 PM
5

Sounds like some simple education about the foreskin and sex would solve most of those problems. That's not an argument for circumcising everyone. Phimosis is not that common and can usually be solved without circumcision. "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s]…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 02:45 AM
4

So you treat the problem when there is a problem. There's no issue with that. However the standard for preventative measures is quite high. You need substantial and clear benefits against severe problems. Vaccines meet this, circumcision does not. Not to mention vaccines don't deal with removing a body part (part of the genitals no less). The Canadian Paediatrics Society has the stats, table 1. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. These stats do not justify routine infant circumcis…
/r/MensRights13/03/17 07:20 AM
2

I'm surprised you're comparing mundane and day-to-day decisions to decisions about a medical procedure. Make no mistake this is not a small procedure. This is removing a body part. You need restraints, anethesia, surgical tools, and post operation care. And obviously this is a permanent alteration, he can never choose to regrow his foreskin. Whereas those left intact can make their own informed choice as adults on their own circumcision. As adults you can choose up leave your parents religion, c…
/r/MensRights13/03/17 07:12 AM
4

To do a medical operation there needs to be a medical reason. If there is not clear, substantial, and immediate benefit it shouldn't be done. When I look at the data the benefits are so slim they effectively don't exist for the individual person. And to overrule someone's right to body self autonomy we need substantial benefits like we see with vaccines. Hygiene is really not an issue in the modern world. I can only imagine it's worse having to deal with a fresh wound in a dirty diaper. It's gre…
/r/MensRights13/03/17 06:50 AM
3

Is just a stupid tradition now.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 05:44 AM
2

Aren't you a little late to the party? Anyway I'll post the stats from the site I linked. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To ensure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would n…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 05:14 AM
12

The big point is that they don't need to be equally bad for them to both be mutilation. This isn't a harm competition. We just need to stop all genital cutting regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 02:52 AM
2

Why would you make an unnecessary medical procedure a family tradition? Choose something else that doesn't remove body parts. And why do you need someone to be negatively affected before stopping? It's like saying I'm gonna start a family tradition of not wearing seat belts until something bad happens. (You may think that's exaggerating but babies die from botched circumcisions. And no one knows how many because it's not recorded as being a result from the circumcision, rather it's recorded as i…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 02:47 AM
3

Go ahead with your own circumcision. Adults can make their own informed decision and do what they want with their own body. Really I mean it, go right ahead, all the power to you to circumcise yourself. Unless there's a medical need, you don't have the right to do this to potential sons. It's their body and it's their choice. Look at the stats again, there is no medical need for this. And at those numbers I say there's even no medical benefit at the individual level.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:57 PM
3

Look at this from the other angle. Instead of saying ‘show me why I shouldn't circumcise', flip that around and say 'show me why I should circumcise’. Then when you look at the stats you'll see that the numbers are terrible. We are born with a foreskin, there needs to be an argument to remove it. Stats are on Table 1 http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:34 PM
5

You can see the stats below. But even then circumcision is far from an effective method. We need to focus on sex education, condom use, and clean needle programs. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. Look at table 1.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 06:28 AM
4

But it is forced on people. Even when the parent decides, it's done to a newborn that can not consent or object to it. It's better to leave this decision to the person when they are older enough to make their own informed decision. As for the health benefits the stats are not good. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so …
/r/MensRights06/03/17 06:26 AM
4

You'd have to circumcise 67 normal healthy boys to prevent a single case of Phimosis. Hardly what I call good stats or argument for circumcision. Table 1 http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights06/03/17 06:18 AM
3

The stats on the benefits are far from good. Take a look at table 1 http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. I find it distasteful that all these other links will talk endlessly about benefits but never say that: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." "The number needed to treat to prevent one HIV infection varied ... with an average in all males of 298." "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require ci…
/r/MensRights06/03/17 06:04 AM
5

It's great that you're happy with your circumcision. It really is. That doesn't change that the procedure is irreversible and those that aren't happy with it are stuck despite never having a say. And despite that there is no medical need for routine circumcisions. The best part forward is to not do unnecessary medical procedures. Adults can choose for themselves.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:56 AM
3

If you had trouble peeing it was most likely a legit medical need. At least you were not ritually circumcised. Also visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:37 AM
1

Visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:05 AM
6

Adults can do whatever they want to their own body.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 01:27 AM
38

How about we outlaw all genital alternations regardless of gender. Adults can do whatever they want to their own body.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 03:47 PM
10

The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the actual numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To make sure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." Prevention of phimosis NNT =…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 03:31 PM
81

Did you continue the discussion about unnecessary genital alterations regardless of gender? How did it go?
/r/MensRights04/03/17 03:19 PM
5

Problem is the boy didn't sign the contract. It's absurd to me that someone can enforce a contract on an outside party when there is no medical case.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 08:02 PM
6

Hello coachbradd. I still haven't seen any response to the data that I posted, which counters your health benefit claim. I'm returning to this because you seem to like to refer to medical associations. I've visited many medical associations to see if they recommend circumcision or not. We can start with the AAP doesn't recommend circumcision. "The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to rec…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 09:16 PM
1

Oh I'm biased, but it's because of the data (or the lack of in this case, I quite like the Canadian site I linked). There are cases where is medically necessary but those are quite rare. Routine circumcision has no medical basis.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 01:53 AM
6

Lol interesting. I did reply with counters. It seems you've chosen to ignore them. How is personal choice a false narrative? I posted a link that showed how slim the benefits are, so this is not medically necessary. I'll copy out some of the data for you. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 01:44 AM
8

Funny I thought the same of yours. But I see you have no counters.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:34 AM
7

The purported benefits of circumcision are so slim they effectively don't exist at the individual level. We should not be doing any procedure to someone unless there is clear and substantial benefit, especially when they can not give consent. Vaccines on the other hand are crazy effective and have a clear and substantial benefit to the person receiving it. You'll find that most people here want circumcision to be decided by the person receiving it. Not the parent and not front social pressure. I…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 11:41 PM
6

Many people think it leads to diminished sexual pleasure because it removes skin rich in nerve endings, removes the gliding action of the foreskin, and removes protection of the glans. The purported benefits of circumcision are so slim they effectively don't exist at the individual level. So we should not be doing any procedure to someone that can not give consent unless there is clear and substantial benefit.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 11:25 PM
2

Your parents were probably told the prevailing medical opinion at the time and they've stuck with that. You can find much better stats on the purported benefits here: http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights17/02/17 06:26 PM
3

Come visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/askTRP10/02/17 09:54 PM
2

It's done so the best thing to do now is focus on being good parents. That'll be a bigger factor in his well being. You said you did it on the advice of your social group. I think you should now be a voice against it in your group. This practice continues because no one challenges it, you can be the one that questions it. If health benefits are brought up you can pass along the info here, table 1 especially. The benefits are far too slim for this to be considered preventative medicine. http://ww…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 06:00 PM
1

Hey mamaEmily! You never did answer my question.
/r/TheRedPill08/02/17 03:45 PM
2

Something tells me you'd be butthurt if at best, sex barely felt good and at worst, hurt. If yours turned out fine I'm glad for you, really am. Not everyone's did.
/r/TheRedPill08/02/17 06:03 AM
3

I'm not sure what you mean. In regards to bad effects, circumcision had this bizarre exemption on standard medical policies. The normal ethic is that a procedure needs to have a clear benefit to the patient or you do not do it. And if the patient can not give consent the benefit must be very clear and substantial. But you don't see that with circumcision when you look at the stats. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision So we don't even need to start talking about detrimental effects …
/r/TheRedPill08/02/17 12:15 AM
2

You're lucky that you don't have any issues. Many people do. It's better to err on the side of not removing body parts when the medical benefits are so slim. If an adult wants to get circumcised that's his choice.
/r/TheRedPill07/02/17 11:20 PM
1

Don't worry I'm not in knots about it. Pain was only during sex, although some guys say theirs is tight enough that erections are painful. You can see the coverage index here. I think I was a little tighter than CI 1 http://www.restoringforeskin.org/coverage-index/CI-chart.htm
/r/MensRights06/02/17 09:35 PM
1

It's good that you didn't have any issues. But a lot of people sincerely do. That includes myself, my circumcision was so tight that sex hurt, except only in a small range of motion in one position. It took me several years and that weird friend that opposed circumcision to connect the dots. You don't have to look far for a lot of these stories. And I was one of the few that connected the dots, how many men just go around assuming that's normal? I'm betting a lot.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:36 PM
2

Come visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:30 PM
7

It's undoubtedly erogenous tissue. It removes the gliding action of the penis as well as the protection of the glans. So it will have an impact, the question is how much. I've read the studies that say there is no impact and I am wholly unimpressed; poor methodologies, ignoring the foreskin b/c how do you study it when it's not there, simplistic yes no surveys on 'do you enjoy sex', and quite short timelines (2 years usually, but ranges from 12 weeks to 4 years). Frankly I'm amazed that they are…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:15 PM
15

You have to look at the stats. I recommend reading http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision, especially table 1. Personally I think the benefits are far too slim to justify it. The best argument is for STDs but it is far from effective prevention, you have to use condoms and practice safe sex. A few excerpts: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." "The number needed to treat to prevent one HIV infection va…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:05 PM
1

You can visit r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights03/02/17 06:25 AM
2

Don't know how it happened but my reply went to the wrong person Thank you the civilized reply, it's not seen often enough. I disagree with the idea that you need proof to change the status quo. That is an appeal to antiquity fallacy (that's a good write on it). I think in everything, we have to consistently reaffirm that what we are doing is correct. To do otherwise is unscientific, and if we continued to accept old teachings without them being reaffirmed we would never advance. Asking to prove…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 07:12 PM
2

STIs are about the best argument for circumcision. It's not effective enough so people still have to use condoms. We as a society should choose less invasive options like sex education, cheap/free condoms, safe needle programs, etc. Let's keep in mind that circumcision involves removing a body part, it's not free so to speak. And this can be something that someone chooses when they're an adult. A fair question and I'll answer it honestly. In my mid twenties I found my sensitivity had gone down a…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 07:02 AM
1

Those Canadians eh, being useful and stuff.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 06:32 AM
2

The American one says benefits outweigh the risk and do not recommend it. The Canadian one didn't say anything like that, just that they don't recommend it. And the AAP has been criticized they “ appears to interpret “risk” as referring (primarily or exclusively) to the “risk of surgical complications.” and “...underestimated even the known risks of circumcision, by focusing on the comparatively rare, immediate surgical risks and complications that occur soon after the operation, while ignoring …
/r/MensRights02/02/17 04:14 AM
1

What you consider to look nice is not what other people consider to look nice. Leave the decision to the person when they can make it. There is no medical need for it so it shouldn't be done until someone consents to it.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 11:15 PM
1

Quite often it's not. And the social pressure on men is often from women because they see uncut as weird.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 11:13 PM
2

I agree we can't ignore the data, so let's look at it. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To make sure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth t…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 11:11 PM
2

What you consider to look nice is not what other people consider to look nice. Leave the decision to the person when they can make it. There is no medical need for it so it shouldn't be done until someone consents to it.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:59 PM
2

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of the foreskin without medical need (I'll post info if you…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:50 PM
2

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of the foreskin without medical need (I'll post info if you…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:50 PM
2

Funny when the AAP doesn't recommend circumcision: "The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.". And both the AAP and CDC have been criticized that “Conceptually, the CDC relies on an inappropriate construal of risk in its benefit vs. risk analysis, since it appears to interpret “risk” as referring (primarily or exclusively) to the “risk of surgica…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:49 PM
2

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of the foreskin without medical need (I'll post info if you…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:48 PM
2

To start, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." This is far from a compelling number. Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:47 PM
2

We don't need to compare them. We need to stop the hypocrisy that one is rejected (rightfully) while the other is not only accepted, it's pushed to the point where people that don't get it are ridiculed. Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving parti…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:41 PM
1

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of part of the foreskin for no medical reason (http://www.c…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:34 PM
1

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of part of the foreskin for no medical reason (http://www.c…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:34 PM
2

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of part of the foreskin for no medical reason (http://www.c…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:33 PM
2

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove gender we get: 'all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.' Since male circumcision is removal of part of the foreskin for no medical reason (I'll post in…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:32 PM
2

What you consider to look nice is not what other people consider to look nice. Leave the decision to the person when they can make it. There is no medical need for it so it shouldn't be done until someone consents to it.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:31 PM
1

The 3 African studies are referred to a lot and have come under question by several organizatoins. The Canadian position paper on circumcision says "It remains unclear, however, whether these conclusions can be applied to populations in developed countries, where the HIV seroprevalence rates are lower and common routes of HIV transmission include injection drug use (IDU) and men who have sex with men (MSM)." And is under attack so much by this group of 39 notable European doctors that they basic…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:19 PM
3

Unless there is a medical need for circumcision it shouldn't be done. When I look at the data the benefits are so slim they effectively don't exist for the individual person and we shouldn't do medical procedures to someone unless there is a clear and substantial benefit. Another issue is that societal pressure is really a shitty reason to start removing body parts. And it's usually done at an age when the person can not give consent and can not accept. Last but not least many people think it re…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 10:02 PM
2

Thank you the civilized reply, it's not seen often enough. I disagree with the idea that you need proof to change the status quo. That is an appeal to antiquity fallacy (that's a good write on it). I think in everything, we have to consistently reaffirm that what we are doing is correct. To do otherwise is unscientific, and if we continued to accept old teachings without them being reaffirmed we would never advance. Asking to prove there is an impact to sexual pleasure is again backwards, especi…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 05:39 AM
1

If you only do the odd debate (eg few) of men's rights you could avoid social suicide. Make sure you pick one that has lots of logic and backing. I say logic first because data will be questioned. Pst pick circumcision as genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:32 AM
3

That's fine but there are many that aren't and they can't go get uncircumcised. However if you're left uncircumcised people as adults can choose to get circumcised.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:22 AM
4

This is approaching the subject from the wrong angle. The onus of proof should always be on the group that wants to do the action (do the circumcision) that it has benefits and not detriments. I've read about 20 of the studies that purport no relationship between circumcision and pleasure (some just the abstract since full access needed payment). Most of them are quite bad; poor methodologies, ignoring the foreskin b/c how do you study it when it's not there, simplistic yes no surveys on 'do you…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:18 AM
4

It's thought a circumcised penis pulls the moisture out during the thrusting. Uncircumcised however has a gliding action where the penis head moves while the majority of the skin doesn't (or doesn't as much), so it doesn't pull out as much moisture. You can try googling the gliding action since a video is more illustrative, I have no links.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:09 AM
3

The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has all the NNTs in Table 1. Something the AAP disgustingly leaves out. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:15 PM
15

Spread the word to your friends.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:57 PM
1

There was just a discussion about this on Christianity. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5r1oe3/views_on_male_circumcision/
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:30 PM
3

Please continue to fight for your potential future son. The Canadian Paediatrics society has all the numbers on the purported benefits. But they are too slim in my mind to be a benefit to the individual person. cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:26 PM
5

The AAP doesn't even recommend circumcision. "The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.". But I agree generally, what has to change is the individual opinions of the medical community and for them to stop pushing it despite their own medical literature. They should actually push against it if anything due to their oath of 'do no harm'.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:17 PM
3

Firstly it's worth noting that the AAP doesn't recommend circumcision. The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the actual numbers listed here http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To make sure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be…
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:14 PM
4

The Canadian Paediatrics Society position paper has the numbers listed http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. It's highly informative so I recommend reading through. NNT is number needed to treat, so the number of circumcisions needed to prevent one occurrence of the item listed. To make sure we're reading this the same way, "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." Prevention of phimosis NNT = 67 Decrease…
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:04 PM
1

Sorry to hear that. That's fucked up, medically needed ones should be covered. I just Googled it and found it's$1500, should definitely be covered.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 06:14 PM
3

The AAP doesn't recommend circumcision: "The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.". And the AAP and CDC respectively have been criticized that: "“it is inconceivable that the AAP [and by extension, the CDC] could have objectively concluded that the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks when the ‘true incidence of complications’ isn’t known…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 12:21 AM
2

You can visit us at r/foreskin_restoration
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:06 PM
3

Welcome to the sub. It took me forever to link my issues with circumcision.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:04 PM
8

It's because there is no medical benefit to the procedure (see below). And there is good evidence that it removes nerve endings, gliding action, and protection of the glans which many people think leads to desensitization. When there is no medical benefit to the person, and the person receiving it can not give consent, the decision should be up to the person whether or not to do it to themselves. If an adult wants to circumcise themselves, is their decision. The Canadian Paediatrics Society posi…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:24 AM
9

If there's a medical reason it didn't shouldn't be viewed as cosmetic. If it's Phimosis go check out r/Phimosis, it can usually be solved by stretches.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:18 AM
6

Come visit us as r/foreskin_restoration. If it's because your shaft skin is too tight getting basic slack is awesome.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:15 AM
14

It removes many nerve endings that would have been active. It removes the gliding action that would have been present during sex with a foreskin. Many, including myself, think it leads to a desensitization of the glans because it's always exposed and not protected.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:05 AM
5

The American Academy Paediatrics Society even says "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision". That's right the more often heard "health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks". However they seem to limit the risks to things like bleeding and infection, not long term deleterious effects.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:53 AM
3

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." I really like this definition because it is full stop, no bullshit, cutting without medical necessity is mutilation. It doesn't have a requirement about how bad or severe it has to be. We should apply that same logic to circumcisions.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 07:04 PM
6

No one's trying to make you feel bad. People are just trying to change the narrative to be that uncircumcised should be the normal and default position. Visit r/foreskin_restoration if you'd like.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 07:01 PM
4

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." I really like this definition because it is full stop, no bullshit, cutting without medical necessity is mutilation. And the onus is on the person that wants to cut to prove medical benefit. Notice it doesn't have a requirement about how bad or severe it has to b…
/r/MensRights14/01/17 06:59 PM
1

Take a look through this study. He analyzed the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penis and find the foreskin too be very sensitive. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full
/r/MensRights14/01/17 06:47 PM
3

Source? I'd really like to see that.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 08:26 AM
–

Is the audio fucked for anyone else?
/r/MensRights12/01/17 07:49 AM
10

Agreed. We should lose our collective shit on both of them. Just so fucking bizarre that we have to tell people to stop cutting babies genitals.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 05:55 PM
3

Do you know of any research into the number of botched circumcisions? Everything I've read says it's very low but does not give a number, say per 100,000 done. I'd like this so I can compare it to rare diseases that we fund to find cures.
/r/TheRedPill30/12/16 04:43 PM
4

Let's take the World Health Organization definition of Female Genital Mutilation: "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." If we remove all gender we get: all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons. Male circumcision is removal of part of the foreskin for no medical reason*, so I conclude t…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:18 PM
3

Men who were not circumcised have the foreskin and can decide if they find it sensitive/pleasurable. Men who were circumcised never know what it would have felt like.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:05 AM
14

I was circumcised at birth and oppose routine newborn circumcision. Unless there's a multitude of and clear evidence that's it's beneficial to the person the default position should be to do nothing, aka not do a circumcision. It also has to be beneficial, not just 'no measurable effect'. This is especially important for anything done to someone else at an age when they can neither object or consent to it. There is currently no medical reason (see below) for routine circumcision so we should go …
/r/MensRights28/12/16 03:41 AM
15

Hard to have an opinion freakish meat sheathe Cognitive dissonance much?
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:53 PM
1

If you keep going you will reach a point where it's not your immediate mission to get laid or to get release. At 5-6 weeks in you are probably pent up and want release, and it shows. You may want to keep going to where you are not pent up, go into the flatline, and go past the flatline. Then you're able to return to a more 'normal' state and sex life. This all depends on your reason for doing nofap.
/r/seduction15/08/16 05:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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