TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bobb___ Archive

View 3 posts and 91 comments by bobb___ on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
15

Women are equal, so why not ask the women too? That's sexist to think that only men are able to come to the rescue of damsels in distress. Women are equally capable as men of being knights in shining armor.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 03:37 PM
7

Men (79%) say men's mental health issues are not openly addressed in today's society Men's mental health issues are caused by "today's society" in the first place. Of course "today's society" won't admit it but that's just part of the mindfuck it uses to cause men's mental health issues. In "today's society", men are considered disposable.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 12:55 PM
3

Riddle me this: How does one expect to collect $379,537 from 50 people ($7590.74 per person) who apparently are so financially insolvent that they need food stamps from the state to eat? pour encourager les autres
/r/MensRights04/08/16 10:18 PM
2

He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses. These guys are real geniuses. So they borrow money from the government, pay themselves a bonus with company money and put it in their personal bank accounts, and then have the company go bankrupt. So all the assets a…
/r/MensRights04/08/16 09:57 PM
3

Yeah I guess you're right. It's more like fascism.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 09:28 PM
1

<s> That just proves how strong the Patriarchy™ is. The Patriarchy™ oppresses women so much that women can't even make a movie. Women are still being discriminated against. Women need equality. </s>
/r/MensRights04/08/16 09:11 PM
3

Well the profits are privatized. The ownership is privatized. But the costs are socialized.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 08:58 PM
3

Why not just give the kids food stamps and welfare? Oh but that's too easy. If the fathers can get that then why can't the kids? And if kids have that, they shouldn't need child support.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 08:52 PM
5

And I guess there's nothing abnormal about amputating part of a baby's penis. Apparently that's not an abnormal surgical procedure.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 01:59 PM
2

It's useless dead skin, but we can make the best skin cream in the world out of it. I wonder how it would feel to have it on my penis.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 01:37 PM
2

They can't admit to their gfs that they have defective penises.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 11:53 AM
3

Well, why don't you smash your keyboard in righteous anger when women say they "prefer" foreskinless men? That's not satire. They really mean it.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 08:33 AM
1

The counter-protesters show everything that's wrong about male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights04/08/16 03:39 AM
3

And of course they have these huge cars, like they're compensating for something. "I'm missing part of my penis, so I need a huge car to look like a real man."
/r/MensRights04/08/16 02:43 AM
30

I prefer women who've had labiaplasty to get rid of all the gross extra skin flaps that they don't need. Women look cleaner and more streamlined that way. All those skin flaps get in the way during sex. Labia look gross. Labia trap germs and I don't want STDs.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 11:21 AM
8

Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision I have all of those at the same time.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 09:28 PM
2

She would be preventing her sons from getting any real pleasure out of masturbation or sex. http://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_masturbation.html circumcision is undoubtedly the physician’s closest friend and ally, offering as it does a certain means of alleviation and pronounced benefit …. Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance … long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous dorsal veins, go to make up a picture that is exceedingly temp…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 04:00 AM
2

This was introduced in the US as a punishment for masturbation. It takes away almost all of the pleasure. Pleasurable masturbation is powerful stress relief. Without it people go crazy. http://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_masturbation.html circumcision is undoubtedly the physician’s closest friend and ally, offering as it does a certain means of alleviation and pronounced benefit …. Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance … long thickened foreskin, pliant and g…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 03:45 AM
2

If we all turn into circumfetishists, we'll end MGM! He's basically saying the same things that circumfetishists say.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 02:44 AM
1

including infant boys being masturbated to give them an erection etc. They have to make sure they get EVERYTHING. You can't be allowed any movable "skin". http://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_masturbation.html circumcision is undoubtedly the physician’s closest friend and ally, offering as it does a certain means of alleviation and pronounced benefit …. Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance … long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 02:27 AM
-1

increase women's sexual market value by making men more dependent on them. as a victim of genital mutilation These have to be connected. Foreskinless men can't get the normal amount of satisfaction from sex. They need more sex than normal men. That means they need women more than normal men. Women have more power over foreskinless men than normal men.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 11:27 PM
2

He's a Men's advocate? He sounds exactly like a circumfetishist. If he doesn't believe in men's right to an intact body then he doesn't believe in men's rights.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 11:01 PM
2

Rational intactivism would emphasize the tragedy of botched circumcisions. That's not intactivism if you only care about "botched" foreskin amputations like total loss of the penis. You're not even an intactivist. So you're saying boys should be mutilated, but we should feel sorry for the "botched" mutilations. That's not intactivism! Every foreskin amputation cripples the penis. Every foreskin amputation is actually botched.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 10:53 PM
2

That girl is laughing because she knows foreskin amputation gives women absolute power over men's lives. Foreskinless men get barely any pleasure from sex and they don't feel satisfied. Foreskinless men need more sex than normal men need. That gives women a lot more power over foreskinless men than they would have over normal men.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 09:55 PM
1

He's not an intactivist if he only cares about "botched" foreskin amputations. (What does botched mean? Loss of the whole penis?) "Let's let boys get mutilated, but let's feel sorry for the boys who got botched mutilations." Yeah, that's not even close to intactivism. But really, every foreskin amputation is botched. It's designed to botch the penis and make it defective. He uses the same arguments that circumfetishists use to justify MGM. And so do a lot of others! "Most men are happy." "They d…
/r/MensRights01/08/16 07:46 PM
5

Foreskinless men are unable to experience the full amount of sexual pleasure that normal men can experience. This is a crime against humanity when done to somebody against their will without a legitimate medical reason. You don't chop off a girl's clit because "she's too young to consent so the parents should decide for her." There should be nothing for the parents to "decide". Boys should be allowed to keep their foreskins unless there's a very good medical reason, like gangrene. "Preventing ST…
/r/MensRights01/08/16 05:42 PM
4

The only other option is to say "my dick was mutilated without my consent" and there isn't much that's more emasculating. Their dicks WERE mutilated without their consent. They would rather live a lie? Their whole life is a lie if they can't admit that.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 01:00 PM
-2

Nocirc fails because most circumcised men don't give a damn. "Men's rights" fails because most men don't give a damn about men's rights. Most men are feminized mangina pussy chasers that do the bidding of women. They will do anything women say just to get pussy. If a woman tells a man to chop off part of his penis, he'll do it to keep getting pussy. If a woman tells a man to chop off part of his son's penis, he'll do it to keep getting pussy. They're willing to sacrifice their own rights if they…
/r/MensRights01/08/16 11:58 AM
0

They're just not rabid unhinged fanatics insisting that: circumcised men are sexually defective Foreskinless men ARE sexually defective. Foreskinless men are literally missing part of their penises. Their penises are literally defective. If you are missing part of an organ, that organ is defective! You're in complete denial if you are going to say you have a normal penis when you have part of it amputated. A foreskinless penis is only a partial penis. It's defective.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 11:48 AM
4

Hardly any of these MRAs on this subreddit are actually intactivists. Oh they say they are, but they just want to infiltrate intactivism and sabotage it. They use the same arguments that circumfetishists use. You seem to just have a defective dick or a severe case of penis envy. Masters, W.H. & V.E. Johnson, 1966. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown & Co. From p190 of Bantam Edition, 1980 It's not like you lost an arm/leg or went deaf/blind. You can do everything a person with foreskin can do. …
/r/MensRights01/08/16 07:30 AM
1

The problem with that "study" is it only measured the sensitivity of the parts remaining after circumcision and made a comparison to those parts on an intact penis. It never measured the sensitivity of the foreskin! You really expect me to believe you're an intactivist? That study was debunked a long time ago. And it's typically brought up by circumfetishists in the first place.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 07:11 AM
1

Do women in Turkey have bigger issues to deal with than having their clits chopped off routinely? :( The clitoris is only a small flap of skin. It's too late now so they should get over it and move on with their lives. Clitless women should stop overreacting. It's not like they lost an arm or a leg. Clitless women can still have vaginal orgasms so they can still enjoy sex. That's totally cruel how women are forced to endure such miserable lives like that. The one organ that probably makes them a…
/r/MensRights01/08/16 03:58 AM
1

Well, foreskin amputation is neutering most of the pleasure from a man's sex life. I'd have to think about that, but getting my balls chopped off and having an intact penis might be better. I'm not having kids anyway.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 01:07 AM
1

This is the men's rights issue. This is the big one. Once every one of the millions of men in America who were foreskin amputated accepts the reality of what happened to them, there will not be a single white knight among them Yeah, and I'd rather masturbate the rest of my life with a normal penis than get mutilated to please a woman who thought "foreskins are gross." Oh but what am I saying, I'm already a mutilated freak so I never had that choice! He says "most circumcised men don't miss their…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 09:23 PM
1

Yeah, that's what Hitler said; the Jooooooooooz! Are so powerful! religion, a far more powerful opponent than even feminism. Religion, i.e. the Jews? Muslims aren't really powerful outside of "Muslim" countries. If you're really saying the Jews are more powerful than feminism, doesn't that mean you agree with Hitler? Or are you saying the Jews and Muslims are powerful? That would make you worse than Hitler.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 09:02 PM
1

Foreskin amputation removes the most sensitive parts of the penis! That's probably why babies are in so much pain from getting their foreskins amputated that they go into comas. Why don't "intactivists" already know this? I knew all about that many years ago. And if you look at the history of why this was done, it's clear that the purpose was to eliminate pleasure. Dr. Kellogg wanted to cure masturbation by eliminating the pleasure of it. Dr. Kellogg is the one who started to make foreskin amput…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:22 PM
2

Yes. The foreskin is the male clitoris. It's pleasurable in itself and it keeps the rest of the penis pleasurable. Even that "Bad Moms" movie called foreskin a "man clit"! The foreskin is necessary to get whole body orgasms like women get with their clitoris. A man with a completely foreskinless penis can only get a local "orgasm" in the penis. It can be somewhere in between but it depends on how much foreskin is amputated. There aren't any standards in foreskin amputation. There's no dotted lin…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:08 PM
1

No clinically significant diference could be detected between the circumcised and uncircumcised glans during these examinations. Yeah, that only measured the sensitivity of the glans. It never measured the sensitivity of the FORESKIN in the unmutilated penis.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 07:07 PM
5

But if a Catholic priest sucks a boy's penis, that's child abuse! You hear about Catholic abuse scandals all the time. I guess only the chosen people have freedom of religion and Catholics don't. But that is totally disgusting, how they can take a perfectly healthy and innocent boy, strap him to a board, and crush his penis with a clamp! The bloodsucking part is just insult to injury (well, compared to getting part of your penis amputated). Freedom of religion doesn't give you the excuse to viol…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 06:19 PM
1

No, my "orgasms" feel like nothing because I had most of my nerve endings amputated. 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin are gone.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 05:57 PM
23

Jewish circumcision used to mean amputating the overhang. But Jews were able to restore the overhang by stretching their foreskins so they looked like Greeks instead of Jews. The rabbis didn't like that and they wanted to make sure no Jew would be able to do that again. So they eventually changed the "covenant" to amputating the entire foreskin and completely exposing the glans. They really wanted to let people know they weren't Greeks. That's weird because I never knew god told them to change h…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 05:27 PM
5

I can't believe somebody voted you down. Wow, these people are really in denial.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 04:18 PM
2

What is going on here? Why do MRAs have to downplay this? By downplaying it you're letting the criminals get away with amputating baby foreskins because "it's only a piece of skin". I also call it foreskin amputation, because that's all it is. They are putting the victim's penis in a clamp and amputating the part called the foreskin.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 03:56 PM
2

Yeah but don't you see that male sexual oppression is part of that feminazi tyranny? Feminists want equality but they don't want men to be protected from genital mutilation, only women.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 03:32 PM
2

She wants everyone to recover because her argument is this: By abnormalizing the sexual act, the resulting sexual frustration emphasis in ALL areas of the relationship. All areas of life. If men are always sexually frustrated it affects their whole lives. Men require the sensitivity of their foreskins to have normal orgasms! People who can never have normal orgasms are going to be sexually frustrated. (And there's no way this can be as harmful to women as it is to men.)
/r/MensRights31/07/16 02:43 PM
2

They even call the foreskin a "man clit" in that video! It is! The foreskin is the male version of a clitoris. It is necessary to have a foreskin in order to get the full satisfaction from sex.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 02:39 PM
1

Well doesn't that book say women get more pleasure from unmutilated penises? If you have a mutilated penis you can't fully please a woman.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 02:31 PM
2

Yeah, but it's a huge problem when people say "it's just a piece of skin". That lets people get away with saying we should keep doing it because the "benefits" make up for the minor loss in functionality! This should not be downplayed. Foreskin amputation causes a major loss in functionality, and there are basically no medical "benefits" that can justify it. Maybe gangrene and penis cancer. I can't think of any other reason to mutilate somebody's penis against their will.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 01:48 PM
0

her enjoyment more important. No it's not. That's something feminists say. Women are not more important than men! wtf? Men have the same right to their sexuality as women.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 01:17 PM
1

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying you agree with it but I'm using the wrong methods to let other people know? And I really don't see anything "fanatical" about anything I said. Do you call it an orgasm when you take a piss? Foreskin is extremely sensitive, so losing it must greatly diminish the quality of orgasms. It's part of the penis, and there's no way that amputating it doesn't cause a loss of sexual pleasure!
/r/MensRights31/07/16 01:09 PM
2

These aren't inflammatory arguments. This is the truth, and "MRAs" scared of the truth are downplaying it. The truth is that foreskin amputation is as damaging to sexuality as clitoridectomy. Like I said, I have to go to motherhood forums to find real intactivists. I really should not have to do that. I really thought MRAs would know this stuff by now. Why can I go to a motherhood forum and find women who understand how damaging "circumcision" is? I will expose "MRA" hypocrites who say that male…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 12:40 PM
1

That's not the same thing as an orgasm. It's not an orgasm when you take a piss. Male orgasm is supposed to be a whole body experience just like female orgasm. Ejaculation is not the same thing as orgasm!
/r/MensRights31/07/16 12:17 PM
1

I have PROOF of this truth. Undeniable proof. Here is a video of a man achieving an orgasm stimulating ONLY his foreskin without touching the head of his penis: http://www.can-fap.net/preview/fundraiser_preview_multipleforegasm.shtml Men without foreskins cannot have ridged band orgasms. But really, men without foreskins cannot have orgasms, period. They can ejaculate, but not orgasm. Just having a nice feeling in the penis is not enough to be an orgasm. You don't call it an orgasm when you take…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 11:54 AM
1

Foreskins are extremely pleasurable. Men who had their foreskins amputated have lost so much sensitivity that they can't have real orgasms. Is it so much of a stretch to say that?
/r/MensRights31/07/16 11:34 AM
1

That's a good one...PORN! You do realize that porn is just ACTING and not real sex? oh, Oh, OH! Yeah right.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 11:07 AM
1

Baby boys go into comas when their foreskins are amputated. You obviously don't know anything about what happens during "circumcision". I don't think they would go into comas if they got a part of their foot chopped off.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 11:01 AM
1

A girl would rather lose an arm or leg than lose her clitoris. You're obviously a circumfetishist. You have no way to justify foreskin amputation other than to call me a troll. So what if I am? You're going to mutilate babies because I'm a troll? That's not logic.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 10:50 AM
5

No, it stems from ancient slavery practices. It has always been the mark of a slave!
/r/MensRights31/07/16 09:22 AM
7

Looks like I provoked a bunch of circumfetishist trolls who are desperate to downplay this. you have only ever known what it is to be circumcised, we can't really understand what we are missing. I like to look in the positives for things. If it has taken away some sexual pleasure, it has made me last longer; it's easier to stay clean and I'll have a lower chance of infection; the most common sexual injury is caused by the tearing of the foreskin. It's not like you lost an arm/leg or went deaf/bl…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:59 AM
1

Oh, so you're a "men's advocate", but you believe in mutilating baby boys? I have to go to motherhood forums to find real intactivists.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:40 AM
0

No, they can ejaculate, but that's not the same as an orgasm.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:36 AM
0

My orgasms always feel like nothing. They're not even orgasms. I know they're supposed to feel a lot better than they do.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:34 AM
1

Please don't do it unless you have gangrene or penis cancer.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:27 AM
1

I like to look in the positives for things. If it has taken away some sexual pleasure, it has made me last longer; it's easier to stay clean and I'll have a lower chance of infection; the most common sexual injury is caused by the tearing of the foreskin. Fuck off. I'm sick of those circumfetishist canards. Yeah, you last longer because your penis is numb. It isn't easier to clean it. And you're going to prevent "tearing" by getting your foreskin completely amputated? I think that's a much worse…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:22 AM
6

If you circumcised a dog, that would be animal cruelty and your dog would be taken away from you! I guess boys don't have as many rights as dogs.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 07:01 AM
2

I'm cut so I can't answer how parts removed would feel like. That's why it's done to babies. If it was done to adults they would know exactly what they were missing.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 06:58 AM
2

It's not like you lost an arm/leg or went deaf/blind. You can do everything a person with foreskin can do. You'll enjoy sex a little less but that doesn't mean you'll not enjoy it... I would rather have lost an arm/leg or be deaf/blind. And it's not just "a little less" enjoyment of sex. Foreskin amputation removes most of the pleasure. Men evolved foreskins for a very good reason. Sexual pleasure gives people something to live for, a reason to live. There is really nothing else in the world tha…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 06:22 AM
2

I don't know what I'm missing, but I do know INSTINCTIVELY that I am missing something extremely important. I knew that even before I knew what "circumcision" was. I have always known that an important part of my body was missing.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 05:28 AM
3

At least I'm not the only one who realized this. For a while I thought I was in a circumfetishist subreddit. Uhhhh I enjoy sex plenty.... I mean it would be nice to have it but...I think you're overreacting over something that you can't change anymore. Don't you just love that? Even an "intactivist" will tell you to "man up and get over it because it's only a piece of skin"! That's exactly what circumfetishists say. It's almost like they're just trying to sabotage intactivism. I'm completely hon…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 04:53 AM
1

I can't figure out why so many "intactivists" want to downplay the harm caused by this. They sound exactly like circumfetishists who say it's "only a piece of skin".
/r/MensRights31/07/16 04:45 AM
1

Denial is common, even for those supposedly "aware" of the harm. Downplaying it lets the criminals make it look like it's no big deal. I think you're underreacting.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 04:40 AM
1

You have no point. People don't go into comas from the pain when unsensitive parts of their bodies are amputated.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 01:57 AM
2

Yeah but you would end up in a coma?
/r/MensRights31/07/16 01:54 AM
1

The best part? The cosmetics industry made money off your foreskin. For all I know, Oprah is wearing my foreskin right now. Maybe I can still get it reattached.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 11:48 PM
1

Ok, so if the foreskin is not that sensitive, then why do victims scream to the point of coma when they're getting their foreskins chopped off? Why would it hurt that much if it's not that sensitive?
/r/MensRights30/07/16 10:53 PM
3

Ok, so if the foreskin is not that sensitive, then why do victims scream to the point of coma when they're getting their foreskins crushed and chopped up? If it's not sensitive it shouldn't hurt that much to get it chopped off. I mean it might hurt like a cat scratch on your arm if it's not very sensitive. Obviously it hurts a lot more than that!
/r/MensRights30/07/16 10:47 PM
3

As an uncut guy Get your foreskin amputated and get back to me, and tell me that you didn't lose much sensitivity. (Please don't really do that though.) I can say that without a foreskin, I feel like there's barely enough sensitivity to ejaculate, and even to do that I have to use rapid jackhammer motion. It shouldn't be that hard. If you still have a foreskin, you don't know what it's like to be a victim of male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 10:36 PM
8

It's to protect the glads and give room for growth during puberty. Getting cut you get a lot of thin scar tissue. Yeah, but that doesn't really hurt your ability to reproduce. (Well it can hurt your ability to reproduce, but that's a "rare complication".) It only diminishes pleasure that you don't "need". You still have just barely enough feeling to ejaculate. That's obviously the point of this mutilation. They leave you just enough feeling to ejaculate and nothing beyond that. This is totally s…
/r/MensRights30/07/16 06:17 PM
3

If I was a girl, my life is a miserable, empty, hellish existence totally devoid of any meaning because I don't have a clitoris would make perfect sense. There are 8,000 nerve endings in the clitoris and 20,000 in the "foreskin" (which is not simply skin).
/r/MensRights30/07/16 03:21 PM
1

my life is a miserable, empty, hellish existence totally devoid of any meaning because I had 85% of my nerve endings in my penis amputated to make it impossible to feel any real pleasure from sexual stimulation. I have tight painful erections because thanks to "doctors" I have no movable tissue remaining and I don't have enough "skin" to cover the increase in length from an erection. Sex is the only thing that makes life worth living, and if I can't enjoy sex then I can't enjoy life. For some re…
/r/MensRights30/07/16 10:19 AM
1

I am not amused. My parents probably thought that way for real, and that's probably why my life is a miserable, empty, hellish existence totally devoid of any meaning. I can never forgive my parents for letting this happen to me. Male genital mutilation is as physically devastating as female genital mutilation, and the psychological effects are also just as devastating. More men need to speak up about this to put an end to this CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 09:40 AM
4

You don't call women with their clitoral hoods "uncircumcised". You call them normal women.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 09:14 AM
12

That's absolutely disgusting. "Uncircumcised" is NORMAL. There is nothing gross about having the genitals you were born with. I think it's gross to take a baby and amputate part of his penis.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 06:32 AM
1

What medical condition? Gangrene? That's basically the only "medical condition" where this is justified. And maybe "penis cancer", but I don't think any babies have ever had that.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 06:24 AM
3

It never worked on me. It gave me no motivation to live. Why should I be a slave when I'd rather be dead? Every time I masturbate I can tell there's a huge amount of sensation missing. It never feels normal. And I'm tired of people saying sex doesn't matter. Sex is a huge part of life, a huge motivator and probably the only thing making life worth living. Sexually mutilating people like this reduces their enjoyment of life and reduces their motivation to live.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 06:08 AM
2

This is what "circumcision" means. This is not normal, at all. This is nothing but torture and mutilation. Why is this done to unconsenting babies? What right does anybody have to take a perfectly healthy baby and mutilate him like this? If a girl gets her clit pricked, that's female genital mutilation. But you can strap a boy to a board and crush his penis with a clamp. And for step #7, what is the "correct fitting and placement", and how does the "surgeon" know the "amount of foreskin to be ex…
/r/MensRights30/07/16 12:47 AM
3

Nope. I'll never feel better. This has been on my mind every single day for years, and I've never "gotten over it". Actually I get even more pissed off about it as time goes on. I will never be able to enjoy life the way I should be able to. I've always known there was something not right about my penis, even before I ever heard that euphemism "circumcision". Oh and I can't say that I got any of those "benefits". What a joke that is. There are no benefits. It's designed to eliminate sexual pleas…
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:40 PM
3

Fine. I'll just change my gender identity to woman. Then I'll get all the benefits of feminism. I'll be able to sue my doctor for female genital mutilation while I'm at it.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:31 AM
2

Babies aren't having sex, so why does it matter if it prevents STDs? Why not just let them decide for themselves when they're old enough to have sex? (Because then they would choose not to get mutilated.)
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:27 AM
1

The Rabbis also suck the bloody penises of their victims. That's allowed because "freedom of religion". But if Catholic priests abuse boys it doesn't count as freedom of religion.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:27 AM
7

"the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks" My life is ruined because I was strapped to a torture rack and mutilated against my will. I would never have chosen this, but I guess you can do whatever you want to boys as long as they "don't remember it". There's nothing I want more than to be able to experience normal sex with someone I love, but I will never be able to experience it. I don't "know what I'm missing" but I do know that I am missing something, something huge, like the meaning o…
/r/MensRights28/07/16 10:06 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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