TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dalkon Archive

View 6 posts and 149 comments by dalkon 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)
4

Christians who believe in circumcising their children don't realize they're following the commandment of the Pharisees, the nemeses of Christ (Acts 15:1-9). In his Epistles, Paul said circumcision was spiritually worthless (Galatians 5:2) and a mutilation (Philippians 3:2). The story of Abraham and the covenant of genital cutting in Genesis 17 was only authored around 515 BC, when the priests came back from Babylon, which was more than 1,300 years after the events it described are supposed to ha…
/r/RPChristians02/01/21 04:13 PM
3

A very small minority of men have shit foreskin. They often want to destroy it. That's their prerogative. Calling them dumb ignores the reality of men's varied experiences with their foreskins.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 10:19 AM
2

Misunderstanding the ethical difference between voluntary or therapeutic foreskin excision and involuntary non-therapeutic destructive genital surgery has unfortunately resulted in the medical community (who obviously should know better) mistakenly sanctioning involuntary non-therapeutic destructive genital surgery as if it were somehow not involuntary and non-therapeutic. I support referring to involuntary non-therapeutic destructive child genital surgery by such a long name because that should…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 10:17 AM
2

Hundreds of babies bleed to death each year. How many of them bleed to death because of elective genital surgery? The CDC has publicly refused to record circumcision deaths because they are aware that any number of infant deaths for elective genital surgery is too many.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:25 AM
1

Do you consider journalism about female child genital cutting biased when it does not present pro-surgery arguments too? I didn't downvote this, but I hope you don't think this is intactivism.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:53 AM
1

She seems to have become a stronger circumcision activist for what she learned (from circumcision activist Dr. Hittelman), doesn't she?
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:01 AM
4

To repeat my comment from /r/Intactivists: The title of this should be "Yale Doctor Adam Hittelman doesn't know much about infant genital surgery but he sure loves it." The author knows nothing about her topic. She doesn't seem to be aware that she does have a prepuce too. The clitoral hood is the prepuce or foreskin of the clitoris. And she's not aware that the only reason her clitoral hood is protected by law is because it is considered to be a part of the clitoris. Why isn't the penile foresk…
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:41 AM
10

That preference is called circumfetishism. It would appear to motivate all the most intense anti-foreskin/infant genital surgery activism like Brian Morris and other Circlist.org writers.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 03:18 AM
11

Are MRAs who argue against males having autonomy over their own bodies still MRAs? Are feminists who promote female child genital cutting still feminists? I think most feminists would reject their use of that label.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 03:14 AM
1

It seems like circumcision culture blinders prevented the members of the review board from seeing any connection between the "elective" non-therapeutic infant genital surgery and the bleeding that the child eventually died of. There's a lot of room for new information in this story with so little detail, but the review board's failure to reprimand Wise more strongly appears to be circumcision cultural blindness or what might fairly be termed "multicultural extremism" (like tolerating severe fema…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 09:54 PM
2

This is from 2013, if anyone missed the date. Calling intactivism antisemitic is still popular though. Here's a Danish Semitic history professor calling Danish intactivism antisemitic a couple weeks ago http://politiken.dk/debat/profiler/herbener/ECE2860248/et-forbud-mod-omskaering-kan-foere-til-dansk-joededoms-endeligt/ Circumcising cultures regard the foreskin as a deformity or essentially as a birth defect, which is how they justify destroying a part of the penis as improvement rather than th…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:59 PM
19

Or they'd probably interact with an intact penis at some point and realize it's normal and that circumcision cultures' foreskin stigmatization is mostly a product of men's defensive feelings about having had genital surgery imposed on them.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 03:57 PM
5

The most common prepucectomy+clitoridectomy is directly comparable to circumcision plus cutting off some frontal portion of the glans usually not to the glans corona. That surgical error in male child circumcision has won large lawsuits in the past. In fact, it's why Miltex no longer makes Mogen clamps. They lost multiple million dollar lawsuits for that error to which that clamp is prone. http://nypost.com/2010/07/18/10m-for-circum-slicing/ http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/26/health/la-he-c…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 02:11 PM
6

The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds [i.e., were more sensitive] than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9. [NSFW figure from the study detailing the most relevant results] The analysis sampl…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 01:56 PM
1

I would guess it's mockery.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 01:23 PM
5

It's not common, most doctors and hospitals respect people more than that, but it can happen. You might want to avoid Indiana. A parent was denied a settlement for circumcising an infant without consent in 2011. In Texas, when an OB performed the surgery on an infant with the parent's explicitly denied consent in 1997, the parents won a settlement when they sued him. He was also reprimanded by the State Medical Board for "failure to practice medicine in an acceptable manner consistent with publi…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 01:15 PM
2

Uganda has actually lowered HIV rates with condoms, STD awareness, some degree of sexual temperance, and condoms. Condoms have been very effective. A San Francisco Chronicle article reports, "Uganda's HIV rate drops, but not from abstinence...Research from the heavily studied Rakai district in southern Uganda suggests that increased condom use, coupled with premature death among those infected more than a decade ago with the AIDS virus, are primarily responsible for the steady decline in HIV inf…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 03:07 AM
16

This article is misrepresenting the actual CPS statement. As ml66uk pointed out in the comments on that page, the CPS's own press release described their statement very differently: “OTTAWA— In an updated statement released today, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) continues to recommend against the routine circumcision of newborn males.”
/r/MensRights14/09/15 12:39 AM
0

This surgery is different from other surgeries though in that many people believe that it's not surgery especially because euphemisms like "snip" encourage this. * The fact that most people cannot stand to see the surgery does speak to how traumatic it is quite effectively. Also general anesthesia is used for the other surgeries you listed, but local or often no anesthesia is used for infant surgery. It's not just unpleasant to watch because it's surgery, it's unpleasant because it's surgery on …
/r/MensRights12/09/15 01:07 AM
6

The foreskin normally feels really good (Taylor, 1996; Meislahn & Taylor, 2004; Podnar, 2012; Sorrells, 2007; Bronselaer, 2013; Cold & McGrath, 1999). It offers sexual benefits in modulating friction, decreasing friction on the vulva even while increasing stimulation (Taves, 2002), retaining female lubrication in the vagina (Gallup, 2003; Bensley & Boyle, 2003), minimizing potential frictional discomfort (O'Hara, 1999; O'Hara, 2001—NSFW intravaginal foreskin movement; Frisch, 2011), and simplify…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 04:02 AM
11

While the surgery is more or less painful depending on various factors, people who say an infant slept through a circumcision sound like they're not being honest. It's difficult to believe it's ever that painless without general anesthesia, which is not safe for infants. Among other papers Lander (1997) and Brady-Fryer (2005) found that no anesthetic that is safe for use in infants was capable of alleviating all the pain of the surgery. For reference, here are a few circumcision videos showing s…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 03:43 AM
4

Supporters of female genital cutting in cultures with female cutting traditions have in fact pointed to the hypocrisy of our standards: "American parents circumcise their newborns so that the sons will look like the fathers.... What, they ask, gives Americans the right to apply a different standard to African women?" (Gollaher, 2000:200). The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010) One of the most frequently used arguments for treating the two in…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:27 PM
6

If anyone missed the date on this, it's from January. FGM type 4 includes all non-excisive female genital modifications. Obviously foreskin excision is much more significantly destructive than a non-excisive modification like an incision. Using exactly this reasoning in 2010, the AAP recommended allowing exactly the genital modification that this case is discussing (and considers significant harm), but they quickly withdrew that suggestion in the face of massive criticism. http://www.cnn.com/201…
/r/MensRights26/07/15 07:45 PM
2

I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to be drawing distinctions about the meaning of mutilation without explaining them. Do you consider prepucectomy+labiaplasty to be mutilation? That is what the author was writing about, wasn't it? IMO any genital surgery that's performed without consent or therapeutic need can be fairly considered mutilation. The key aspect that makes the surgery "mutilation" is it being unwanted. Could you explain why you disagree (if you do)?
/r/MensRights04/04/15 07:12 PM
1

In many African cultures, female genital modification is viewed as socially empowering much as male genital modification is viewed by anti-foreskin enthusiasts (men) in circumcising cultures like Islam and the US. In male circumcising cultures like the US, we've been fed a steady stream of lies about female genital modification by those who would like to use the practice for their own political purposes (i.e., misinformed/misinforming feminists and disinforming circumcision activists). The idea …
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:59 AM
2

Partial clitoral glansectomy (clitoridectomy/clitorectomy) is more like partial penile glansectomy, which is actually much less functionally impairing than most would assume, but if the comparison is limited to skin/membrane excisions, they are considerably more equivalent ethically than you assume. In the past, the ethical equivalence between destroying parts of the penis and parts of the vulva was acknowledged by US doctors, who considered both valid choices for parents to make for their child…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 09:00 PM
2

That post looks like circumcision activist trolling. I would assume that it is someone who supports male circumcision who only posted that fictional story to try to make reddit support male circumcision. Circumcision activists have been using the false idea of a significant difference between excising skin and membrane from the vulva and excising skin and membrane from the penis to promote male circumcision since the 1980s when the modern movement against child circumcision began as a movement a…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 08:49 PM
40

This title is not accurate. Germany never banned child genital cutting for boys. A Cologne court ruled that nontherapeutic circumcision was a destructive body modification that violated children's rights. Not long after that politicians rallied to legalize the practice explicitly. This article is from the interim period in the summer of 2012. Germany's political encounter with circumcision provides yet another example of religion continuing to be considered an acceptable reason to harm children.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 09:24 PM
3

Planned Parenthood has always supported medically unindicated circumcision. They are part of the Johns Hopkins circumcision propaganda effort. As someone who has donated to them in the past and helped with their fundraisers, I found this extremely upsetting.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 12:43 AM
2

Obviously the CDC's most recent statement is more recent. That blog entry is from 2011, but the report it's referencing is from 2004. There were references at the beginning: Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA; International Conference on AIDS (15th : 2004 : Bangkok, Thailand). http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458066 Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. TuPeC4861. Naval Health Research Center, DHAPP, San Diego, CA, United States http://www.iasociety.org/Abstracts…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 04:14 AM
2

What he actually means... is that intact babies are healthy and normal. I wish he had said that instead. That is considerably more effective language.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:36 AM
3

The WHO [pdf] has estimated 30% of the world cuts penises, but that's mostly Muslim (70%). Excluding Islam, only 10% of the world cuts boys, and it's only 5% of non-Muslim, non-US people.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 12:54 AM
1

It is close to being a tautology that would communicate his point more effectively, but I agree with rg57 that it doesn't seem like the right way to argue the point. "The healthy body is healthy" is a tautology. "The healthy foreskin is healthy" is a tautology. "The healthy foreskin is a part of the healthy body" isn't a tautology, but it is still simple. "[All] Babies are born perfect" is not a tautology, and yeah, it isn't correct. Real intactivists acknowledge the need for involuntary but the…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 01:45 PM
2

I agree that that's a weak argument. Remember the author of this piece is arguing against the points Crowe has made (pro-body autonomy), so of course the journalist is trying to make Crowe's argument sound as weak as possible.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 01:42 PM
11

It's a shame some journalists would rather talk about a Twitter tirade from a few years ago instead of the many relevant questions of the case he commented on. The central question of the case is whether a child ever gains a right to refuse non-therapeutic/"elective" genital cutting. This question of whether a child ever gains a right to refuse non-therapeutic circumcision has been in court a few times and always decided in favor of children's body autonomy: In 2001, a mother tried to have a chi…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 04:51 AM
3

In the parental dispute over cutting the 4 year old in Florida (Chase), the cancer preventative effect was cited by the urologist and judge as benefits of the surgery. Unfortunately no perspective was provided about exactly how small that benefit was. The cancer preventative benefit from male nipple amputation would be 40-50% greater than foreskin amputation.breastcancer.org and cancer.org The penile foreskin is obviously more functional and valuable than nipples or earlobes, yet everyone could …
/r/MensRights14/11/14 01:31 AM
2

Wow, that article is so misleading, it seems like the author must have been confused about it too. The appeals court granted a temporary stay of Judge Gillen's order. This allows the appeal to be heard before forcing "elective" surgery on the child by court order. Everything still depends on what's decided in the appellate court.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 11:51 PM
2

"What age does a child get a right to refuse elective non-therapeutic body modifications?"
/r/MensRights13/11/14 11:23 PM
1

Yeah, the overwhelming majority of references to intact genital skin in US media are negative too. I think this is probably because TV show writers and producers are drawn more from the most cutting demographics. You can see a large collection of references to cutting in popular media at Circumstitions.com.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:35 AM
1

This study was in Uganda. Abbott's 2013 study in Zambia found similar ideas and behavior there. Female sex workers were found to face additional pressure to forego condoms as a result of the idea that male circumcision prevents HIV like a vaccine. ... most [Zambian female sex workers] reported that men often used their MC [medical circumcision] status to try to convince FSWs to forego condoms. Findings suggest that FSWs, already at high risk for HIV infection, may face additional pressure toward…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 11:58 PM
3

Cultural genital cutting is obviously harmful for both sexes. In total, male genital cutting is actually very obviously much worse for killing and mutilating at least ten times as many boys (potentially hundreds of times as many), but circumcision-enthusiast feminists have successfully concealed this truth for almost thirty years using the unbelievably exaggerated narrative of female genital cutting that has been promoted in the West since the 1980s. These deaths and mutilations occurred because…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 10:53 PM
2

Contrary to popular misconceptions in circumcising cultures, the foreskin feels like a part of the head of the penis. It is not an impediment to sexual function, it is the central part of intact penile sensitivity. For most men, it feels like the best feeling part of the head of the penis. The majority of men with intact foreskin agree that the ridged band of the foreskin is the best feeling part of the whole penis (Meislahn & Taylor, 2004). Besides being the part of the penis that is most sensi…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 09:07 PM
1

She sounds like she could be describing a rare deformity called hypertrophy. While I would actually agree with characterizing that deformity as looking deformed (axiomatically), her misapplication of her opinion about that deformity to all intact penises shows how fantastically ignorant she is. She probably hasn't even recognized most intact penises that she's seen were intact. She might have even thought they looked exceptionally good for the lack of scarring. * Infant genital cutting's become …
/r/MensRights20/08/14 01:31 AM
2

Funnily enough, female circumcision "to help husbands find the clitoris" was being promoted in the US until the 1970s. And yes, female circumcision generally meant prepucectomy until the 1980s. Prepucectomy is the amputation of the prepuce, the same as male circumcision.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 01:20 AM
3

Freedom from unwanted genital cutting (i.e., body autonomy) is not about you, your penis or how you feel about your penis. Body autonomy is something we can give the next generation instead of cutting their genitals to be like ours because we're afraid that without cutting their genitals to look like us, they would not be like us.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 09:48 PM
6

It's not magic, but the foreskin does retract with erection to some extent for 90% of intact penises (CI-9 and under). It only retracts with erection to bare the glans completely for roughly 30% of intact penises that have the shortest lengths of foreskin (CI-5 and under). (Google "foreskin coverage index" for visual references.) Are you assuming all foreskin is the same length as yours?
/r/MensRights13/08/14 08:29 PM
2

Would it surprise you to learn that more intactivists are/were feminists than MRAs? If you needed a longer list of feminists who support children's body autonomy for boys (too), we had a discussion about this in /r/Intactivists: /r/Intactivists/comments/2aex18/what_is_the_consensus_of_feminists_do_the/
/r/MensRights13/08/14 04:27 AM
1

This kind of stuff is pointed out all of the time. No, it isn't. Most often those who oppose cutting focus on other points ignoring the most important point, which is explaining the significance of the violation. Few people realize that they're choosing to destroy the most sensitive parts of the head of the penis and replacing them with a scar. I would agree that women have more influential voices to change cultures. As we've seen in Africa, genital cutting promoters use women's voices to promot…
/r/MensRights13/08/14 04:21 AM
3

It's a violation of physical autonomy. Nothing more needs to be said. A large part of the reason people support genital cutting is because they believe it's an insignificant violation. My points explain why it is significant. How do you explain that the violation is significant?
/r/MensRights13/08/14 04:12 AM
5

Unfortunately, MRAs do not seem to have been very good at explaining the personal violation in cultural genital cutting. If we were better at explaining the harm in genital cutting, we wouldn't need women to help like this. To explain the harm in genital cutting, you need to explain the value of the foreskin. Here's how I do that: For most men, the foreskin feels like the best feeling part of the head of the penis. The majority of men with intact foreskin agree that it's the best feeling part of…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 08:44 PM
4

Obligatory NAFALT and explanation: There have been a lot of circumcising-culture feminists who get frothy in support of male genital cutting (like Jezebel, feministe.us, AMR, tumblr and many other femtart outlets), but they're actually the minority of feminists (despite their enormous footprint in gender discussions on the internet). I realize that it's sad to say, but feminists have actually done far more to oppose non-therapeutic genital cutting for boys than the MRM. Have you ever heard of Ha…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 08:34 PM
2

All the most sensitive parts of the penis are parts of the foreskin or the scar left by the surgery (Sorrells, 2007—NSFW relevant diagram). The majority of men with intact foreskin agree that the ridged band, a region of the foreskin, is the best feeling part of the whole penis (Meislahn & Taylor, 2004). Quoting Van Howe (2013): Anatomically, the foreskin is highly erogenous, pentalaminar, specialized, junctional (transitional) tissue. Other transitional tissues in the body include the lips and …
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:44 PM
34

This article doesn't make it clear that there is any drawback to genital cutting. I should address that because in all the information this article omits, it supports the biggest misconception supporting foreskin amputation, the mistaken idea that the foreskin is not a normal part of the penis that men normally like to keep. This is a popular misconception in circumcising cultures. Why would a man like his foreskin? It is normally the most sensitive part of the penis (Sorrells, 2007—NSFW relevan…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 02:44 AM
204

Forced genital cutting is not just an issue for women, but unlike the strong and universal opposition to female genital cutting in the first world, US and international genital surgery enthusiasts and the US government are directly promoting male genital cutting in Africa. The US government's promotion of genital surgery in Africa is ridiculously misguided especially because circumcision makes condoms feel worse for men. Many studies have shown circumcised men are more resistant to using them (V…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 12:43 AM
6

The majority of HIV researchers seem to have forgotten what male genital cutting actually does. It's as if they're only looking at it abstractly as if the foreskin does nothing besides increase HIV risk. It's ridiculously bad science. The majority of men with intact foreskin agree that the ridged band, a part of the foreskin, is the best feeling part of the whole penis (Meislahn & Taylor, 2004). The foreskin is also the most sensitive part of the penis (Sorrells, 2007—NSFW relevant diagram). The…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 05:48 PM
3

Men in the third world who support female child genital cutting are essentially the same as women in the first world who support male child genital cutting. In both cases, in their own minds, these people do nothing wrong, they may merely prefer the appearance of surgically modified genitalia on the opposite sex. We see this opinion expressed on reddit regularly. At least on this site, almost all circumcised men in circumcising cultures "know all women prefer surgically modified penises." Pornog…
/r/MensRights01/08/14 09:25 PM
3

I agree that the present situation is unfortunate. I use scientific research to support my point that the harm in infant genital cutting is significant because minimizing the significance of harm in ^involuntary male genital ^cutting is one of the main ways involuntary non-therapeutic infant genital surgery is promoted in the US. Most US doctors would stop supporting infant genital cutting if they were aware that it's harmful a significant violation of an individual's body autonomy. Unfortunatel…
/r/MensRights31/07/14 10:41 PM
10

It was not determined definitively that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis until 2007 (Sorrells, 2007—NSFW relevant diagram). Most people still appear to be unaware of this simple fact. Many appear to believe (for no good reason) that the foreskin would feel like something other than a part of the penis. The language that is used to describe the foreskin is the most likely culprit for this stupidity. In the US (and probably most other genital-cutting cultures), we are told that…
/r/MensRights31/07/14 10:28 AM
2

As this case demonstrates, some of the major forces behind circumcision activism are "foreskin humiliation" (as a sexual perversion), pedophilia and sadism. People have been talking about the problems with these people since the '90s: What turned me off the whole circumcision scene was to read a report recently about a bunch of men nursing erections as they watched a shrieking baby having his foreskin cut away. When I contemplate the perfection and symmetry of my little boy's body, including his…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 10:28 PM
1

If he is guilty As the link says, he pleaded guilty to these crimes already. What made you think his guilt was in question?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 10:25 PM
6

Infant genital surgery promotion is essentially sexually predatory. These people know they're subjecting men to something against their will in a way that they won't even recognize (due to the nature of culturally normalized infant genital surgery for boys). It's little wonder when an infant genital surgery enthusiast turns out to have been a pedophile.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 09:35 PM
1

This (despicable) satire is based on a false premise that seems to go unacknowledged. Male genital cutting does not lower the risk of acquiring HPV, so there's no reason to think any female genital cutting would either. Contradicting earlier results from the same study, foreskin amputation was found to offer no protection from HPV infection and no benefit to the clearance rate or duration of infection in the largest study of HPV infection in men (Albero, 2014).
/r/MensRights13/07/14 03:23 PM
5

A wattle is the fleshy part of a chicken's face. Wattle is a good name for women who promote male genital surgery, because that's what they call the protuberance of the clitoris in places where they believe it too should be surgically reduced. It's the equivalent of calling the male prepuce a "flap". If these wattles lived in many other parts of the world, they could sing about "wattle chopping" along with "weanie wacking". Many in the US don't realize that a significant fraction of wattle chopp…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 03:48 AM
8

This author is the sort of "feminist" we all hate around here, but it's also worth noting, most other (non-Jewish) feminists would disagree with her as well. I put feminist in quotes because most feminists actually are pro-body autonomy for boys too. They just haven't given the issue due consideration. Many of the most hardcore feminists are or were nominally pro-body autonomy (e.g., Dworkin, Steinem). The most informed experts on FGM are feminists who also oppose child genital surgery for boys.…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 06:37 AM
2

The biggest problem IMHO is news and popular media in the US routinely presenting infant genital surgery as normal or preferable. The news media tend to misrepresent a lot of science in order to promote genital surgery. The most common form this takes is exaggerating the results in reports of pro-genital surgery research while never reporting on pro-body autonomy research. Of course it's probably mostly just because journalist's personal opinions cloud journalism (especially editors), but it's u…
/r/MensRights26/06/14 11:35 PM
0

Why are you always so condescending? Are you trying to convince people that intactivists are douche bags, or are you trying to promote intactivism? If you're actually trying to help intactivism, please don't be so insulting that you're being counterproductive.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 11:22 PM
1

its just a little extra skin It's more than that. It's a functional part of the penis. The amputated "skin" actually feels like the most sensitive part of the head of the penis (Sorrells et al., 2007—NSFW relevant diagram). The ridged band and frenulum are parts of the inner side of the foreskin that work together to magnify the feeling of touch. The majority of men with intact genitalia agree that the foreskin is the best feeling part of the penis (Meislahn & Taylor, 2004). Amputating the fores…
/r/MensRights26/06/14 10:16 PM
1

The promoters of male genital surgery aren't anti-male, though. Are they? I think they're just culturally or religiously motivated to promote genital surgery. And of course, some are sexually motivated.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:49 PM
1

This post has over 5,000 comments in /r/worldnews. No one seems to have explained how the US-led promotion of male genital surgery is a significant part of the problem in ending female genital surgery traditions. Child genital surgery is wrong whether the child is male or female. The promotion of male child genital surgery is part of the problem of female child genital surgery.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:16 AM
1

circinfo.net is Brian Morris's website. He is the face of infant genital surgery lust.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 01:59 AM
60

I see people compare male and female genital surgeries all the time. A lot of those comparisons are inapt and provoke distracting debate. Here is a potentially very useful way to explain the cultural harm in male genital surgery: Male and female genital surgeries are performed for the same basic idea that the human genitalia evolved incorrectly and needs to be corrected with destructive surgery. This is how the US-led<sup>*</sup> global promotion of male genital surgery is also unintentionally p…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 05:57 AM
0

Have you ever seen a circumcision performed? Have you? AAP approved procedure until 1999 (no anesthetic) (NSFW/NSFL:infant genital surgery) AAP approved procedure after 1999 (using surgical risk-increasing saline nerve block anesthetic) (NSFW:infant genital surgery)
/r/MensRights14/06/14 06:49 PM
1

That probably depends on whether the world lets ignorant "feminists" (femtarts) continue to stymie cultural understanding of female genital surgeries with their ignorant-activist misunderstanding of female genital surgeries (the mutilation narrative). If we can correct the popular ("feminist") misunderstanding of cultural child genital surgeries, cultural reform could come quickly. The law will probably only follow slowly, but if parents just got accurate information about the harm in involuntar…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:17 PM
2

Just because you linked to that awful Wikipedia page about the ridged band, I would like to point out that that page displays the promotion of male genital surgery English-language Wikipedia is known for. The intact penis in the upper photo looks like it belongs to a man at least 50 to 60 years old. That's an odd choice. Medical photos normally depict someone more like 20 to 30 years old. That photo would appear to have been chosen to make it appear that intact male genitalia normally looks as w…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:07 PM
7

The way "feminists" shut down discussion of the harm in male genital surgery is also very important and pretty much universally the same: "Don't talk about the harm in male genital surgery because female genital surgery is so much worse that even acknowledging the fact that male genital surgery is unethical would distract from the only issue that matters, female genital 'mutilation'." Of course that misunderstanding is understandable given the widespread mutilation narrative of female genital su…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:07 AM
1

You don't seem to be aware of how SJWs are perceived (especially trans-activist SJWs). Just like the worst part of MRM, they hurt the cause they promote. Why would we want them to also be hurting intactivism? * Do you think MRAs are viewed as SJWs too?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:20 AM
8

Why would trolls care about karma?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 11:34 PM
1

Intactivists already oppose destructive, nontherapeutic genital surgeries for intersex children. We oppose all nontherapeutic child genital surgery.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 11:24 PM
0

No offense, but I think this seems more like an attempt to undermine internet intactivism rather than to help it.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:59 PM
1

Are SJW types good allies? They appear to be a slur against the ideas they espouse.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:50 PM
1

Can I ask, why did you delete your username from 2 months ago? Burning through reddit usernames is something we see trolls do regularly. Most redditors aren't trolls and we only have one reddit username.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:14 PM
1

I agree about the choice of term. Applying an age restriction for destructive genital modifying surgery sounds a lot more reasonable than "ban involuntary genital surgery" even though it means the same thing. But age 21? Are you kidding? Don't you think adults (18+) can make their own surgical decisions? How could you possibly justify denying genital surgery to 18 to 21 year olds?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:06 PM
5

This seems like a joke. The destruction of penile sensitivity and the sexual mechanical function of the foreskin that infant genital surgery entails only matters because it adversely impacts vaginoplasty? Are you kidding?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:53 PM
1

OP sounds like a troll trying to make intactivism or MRM (or probably both) look stupid. I'd prefer to try to ignore everything he wrote. He obviously does not understand genital surgical traditions or how they are related. Your reply here sounds rational, but TBF you don't seem to understand this issue either. Male and female genital surgery traditions are much more closely linked than you would probably have guessed. Feminists (and everyone) should be opposed to male genital surgery more activ…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:49 PM
2

Did anyone watch this or are you just upvoting the title? The title of this post is anti-circumcision, but the video is pro-circumcision.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:39 AM
2

Part of this is a reaction to femtrolls (AMR) and MR trolls generally trashing places up, but it's really unfortunate that even the more respectable feminist subs on reddit don't care about behaving differently from femtrolls. Feminism has always tended to attract a particular trashy definition like something out of Animal Farm: Women are "more equal" than men. Part of it probably just comes down to word choice. The majority of academia who are interested in the same things but who aren't trying…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:42 AM
1

Wikipedia promotes male genital surgery in almost every editorial choice they have ever made. This has been noted already. People who actually work to eliminate female genital surgeries prefer to call them female genital surgeries. The highly publicized mutilation narrative invented by Westerners is actually serving to promote genital surgeries for both sexes globally because everywhere they regard their own culture's genital surgeries as aesthetic improvement rather than "the mutilation" they'v…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:34 AM
1

Male breast cancer is more common than penile cancer.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:25 AM
2

You know what's even more fucked up? Throughout most of the '90s, that was the most popular site on the internet about the topic. Members of that site have militantly patrolled newsgroups especially for new parents to promote their favorite genital surgery. Now they control Wikipedia. It's nuts.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:24 AM
3

I think you're encouraging a dangerously false reading of the literature on HIV especially regarding gay sex. Most studies have found no benefit from circumcision for gay men even those who practice exclusively insertive anal sex. (Also TBF, many gay men don't practice anal sex.) Here is a partial list of research showing no benefit for gay men: Millett, 2007 - no protection to US Black and Latino men who have sex with men (including those practicing the insertive role exclusively) Gust, 2010 - …
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:18 AM
3

Circumcision enthusiasts (especially in the US) have dominated the research on female genital surgery and carefully controlled the narrative about it to make it promote male circumcision. Daniel Halperin is one of the most obvious examples of those who misrepresent female genital surgery as a way to promote male genital surgery.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:29 AM
4

It's from the Hastings Center Report from 2012. It's really helpful to link using a citation like this: The Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa, “Seven Things to Know about Female Genital Surgeries in Africa,” Hastings Center Report, no. 6 (2012): 19-27. I think you might be misrepresenting the people who produced that report though. The writers include doctors especially gynecologists in Africa. It was not the work of naive or medically uninformed people like yo…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:26 AM
1

Genital cuttings are obviously different forms of mutilation. They're also obviously part of the same cultural problem. The idea that a child's genitals are something that parents can and should "improve" with destructive surgery is almost exactly the same problem whether the child is male or female. The clitoral hood is considered a part of the clitoris. Female prepucectomy is often recorded as a variety of clitoridectomy. Why is the penile foreskin regarded as an optional part of the penis? Th…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 09:05 PM
1

The foreskin does help the penis to grip the vulva better, but unlike a ribbed condom, the foreskin moves to reduce friction.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 10:34 AM
2

When I was a kid, I noticed changing stations were in men's rooms more often than women's rooms and I thought that was strange because if infants were out with one parent, it was more likely the mother. Then I worked a food service job for about a year and realized there's no doubt about it, the men's restroom is usually much cleaner. It seems men are more likely to only urinate in a public restroom because for men, #1 and #2 involve totally different approaches in public restrooms, so overall, …
/r/MensRights02/05/14 09:27 AM
1

I think he's trying to make intactivism look as stupid as he himself.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:53 AM
0

No one wants to ban therapeutic amputation of foreskin or anything else. Nontherapeutic foreskin amputation is the only thing anyone has ever been talking about restricting to only those people who want their foreskins amputated.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:54 PM
2

Brian Morris considers healthy foreskin pathological. It seems like Brian Morris might have some experience with defective or pathological foreskin that he has generalized to all human foreskin. The promotion of involuntary nontherapeutic foreskin amputation is pathological. Opposition to children's body autonomy rights for boys undermines body autonomy for both boys and girls in cultures who cut both. There is no culture that cuts female genitals that does not also cut males. Involuntary genita…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 10:05 PM
4

This argument is nothing new. The comparison of opposition to nontherapeutic foreskin amputation to opposition to vaccination was first made in 1902 by circumcision activist P.C. Remondino.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 10:00 PM
1

Here are some relevant studies listed from www.circumcision.org/studies.htm : Early Adverse Experiences May Lead to Abnormal Brain Development and Behavior Self-destructive behavior in current society promotes a search for psychobiological factors underlying this epidemic. The brain of the newborn infant is particularly vulnerability to early adverse experiences, leading to abnormal development and behavior. Although several investigations have correlated newborn complications with abnormal adul…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:29 PM
1

I have been looking for exactly this type of hard science for years. I would not be surprised to learn that the majority of violent criminals are circumcised and that we will discover a direct link to violent genital mutilation and later tendency to enact this trauma on others. If you're trying to talk about circumcision trauma actually having made people crazy like it seems like you're saying here, the only examples I know of circumcision being associated with homicidal rage are Micky Featherst…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:17 PM
0

The sentiment of this man's assailants is what Johns Hopkins University has been contributing to global culture. This man's attackers were defending a cultural practice that would be waning now if not eliminated if not for Western circumcision activists' work exaggerating evidence about health benefits in amputating foreskin. The history of genital cutting (/r/intactivists/wiki) is an enlightening and incredible story of an activist takeover of medicine. Circumcision activism needs to be confron…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:05 PM
0

You seem to have mistakenly thought anyone ever thought the issue was about voluntary, therapeutic foreskin amputation when everyone had been perfectly aware it was nontherapeutic, religious ritual foreskin amputation that was being discussed. No one has ever considered banning voluntary therapeutic foreskin amputation.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 07:03 PM
3

My point remains. Only involuntary, nontherapeutic foreskin amputation is considered harmful. It is only the involuntary, nontherapeutic foreskin amputation of children that anyone has ever considered banning.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 12:36 PM
6

No one is talking about voluntary, therapeutic foreskin amputation. It's only non-therapeutic, involuntary foreskin amputation that is not ethical.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 08:05 AM
0

Circumcision is an elegant sounding word for prepucectomy or more simply, foreskin amputation. The question of mutilation is irrelevant. Children don't deserve nontherapeutic prepuce amputation being forced on them whether they are male or female.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:54 AM
0

To make your point most successfully, you need to use the technical term for the most equivalent female cutting, prepucectomy.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 02:42 AM
3

The idea of harm in male genital cutting is unfortunately relatively new information for many feminists, but the situation is better than OP makes it sound. For example these recent posts in r/Feminism and r/AskFeminists show majorities there oppose involuntary non-therapeutic male genital cutting: /r/Feminism/comments/20a82v/forced_genital_cutting_in_north_america_feminist/ /r/AskFeminists/comments/20ar6h/is_anticircumcision_a_big_thing_in_feminism/
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:29 AM
5

"The boy should be the same as his father" is one of the ways circumcision activists promoted circumcision after most father-age men had been circumcised as infants without even asking for parental permission. Parental consent was not even a consideration, foreskin amputation was automatically done at many or most US hospitals at some point in the past. Some doctors continued this tradition of totally non-consensual circumcision (these doctors considered their own consent sufficient) until infor…
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:48 PM
5

http://www.mgmbill.org/resources.htm has a list of organizations. Here are some from that list: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ http://www.norm-uk.org/ http://www.arclaw.org/ http://circumcisionharm.info/ http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/ http://www.icgi.org/ http://www.circumcision.org/ http://www.circinfo.org/
/r/MensRights20/02/14 09:48 PM
1

You've probably never heard of the 500 boys who have died of circumcision in Africa in just the past decade because while female genital cutting is a central issue to feminists, most feminists support male genital cutting in a powerful but subtle way. Historically all opposition to male genital cutting has been silenced by feminists concerned that any discussion about the harm in male genital cutting would undermine the effort to discourage female genital cutting.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 11:00 AM
2

There's already this infographic diagram and chart on fine touch sensitivity http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif from Sorrells et al. 2007. You might start with that if you wanted to make an NSFW infographic. A description the parts of the foreskin (mucocutaneous junction, ridged band, smooth mucosa, frenulum including frenular delta) vs. the parts of the circumcision (remnant of smooth mucosa and the scar) might be good. Here's a diagram of the friction-reducing intr…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 06:55 AM
2

Wikipedia is controlled by circumcision activists. Doctors Opposing Circumcision issued this statement about Wikipedia: Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit its articles and that all views should be represented in its articles. However, when it comes to male circumcision and the human foreskin the reality is quite different in actual practice. Wikipedia has a practice of appointing super-powered editors to control the circumcision and human foreskin related articles who are prejudiced against t…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:46 AM
2

It is a common misconception that intact sensitivity would cause premature ejaculation issues. The sensitivity of the foreskin is very high but only half orgasmic. The inner side stimulates orgasm, but the outer side is orgasm repressing when it moves to shutter the glans. The foreskin can move during sex as depicted by this NSFW diagram. That motion can reduce friction 10 times when friction is high enough to engage it (Taves 2002) Did you know?
/r/MensRights13/01/14 06:55 AM
1

Why take pride in it? What do you think you know about the foreskin that makes you proud to have had it amputated?
/r/MensRights10/01/14 05:17 AM
1

The MRM should be about empowering men. However, telling circumcised men that their genitals are "mutilated" is not empowering. I agree that people should not use the word mutilated. I don't think you are mutilated. I do think your body was non-therapeutically modified without your consent and that was not ethical even if you're happy with the result. I'm glad you're happy with the result. We probably already agree that the amputation of any normal, functional, healthy parts of the body should o…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:42 AM
5

These are the best points I can think of and have been making lately: The foreskin is a valid and normal part of the male body. It is normally a functional part of the penis. The loss of functional, healthy body parts should only be voluntary. The foreskin is normally the most sensitive part of the penis. It contains both orgasmic inner penis sensitivity and orgasm-repressing outer penis sensitivity. Circumcision replaces most of the foreskin with a small circumcision scar that is usually the mo…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 11:08 PM
1

Why are you referencing Brian Morris about the effect on sensitivity?
/r/MensRights31/12/13 02:46 AM
1

Modified is more neutral. As a term, "uncut" normalizes cutting. Your head isn't undecapitated, is it?
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:22 PM
1

If you didn't know, circumcision activist research kindled non-therapeutic circumcision medical fads in all English speaking countries beginning around the start of the last century and growing rapidly after the second world war, when respect for America and our genital modifying tradition was highest. In most cases these medical fads grew until ended by some doctor. Intactivism has been much more successful in other countries! Britain's circumcision fad ended first because British doctors had b…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:48 PM
0

Non-therapeutic infant circumcision is legal in Norway. The difference is Norway hasn't had circumcision activists convince many doctors and parents that infant circumcision is a good idea.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 01:00 PM
4

In America, most people would make fun of a man who isn't happy to be circumcised. That's how we invalidate the opinions that could make us question our faith in infant genital modification.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 11:55 PM
1

African tribal male circumcision also takes the life of around 40-80 boys every year. There were already 80 dead for this year in the summer.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:49 AM
1

At least it's conveniently easy to remember that male circumcision has been shown to increase the rate of HIV transmission to female partners by the same 60%.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:41 AM
1

Any HIV prevention value of circumcision must be more than offset by increasing HIV transmission to women. Circumcised men are 50-60% more likely to transmit HIV to their female partners. Even worse, circumcision discourages men from using condoms. African prostitutes have stated that unlike men with intact foreskin, circumcised men refuse to use condoms. This is even more significant than it sounds as prostitute HIV infection has been shown to be the biggest single factor in the HIV infection p…
/r/MensRights03/12/13 01:29 AM
1

Any HIV prevention value of circumcision must be more than offset by increasing HIV transmission to women. Circumcised men are 50-60% more likely to transmit HIV to their female partners. Even worse, circumcision discourages men from using condoms. African prostitutes have stated that unlike men with intact foreskin, circumcised men refuse to use condoms. This is even more significant than it sounds as prostitute HIV infection has been shown to be the biggest single factor in the HIV infection p…
/r/MensRights03/12/13 01:26 AM
2

The whole article could be summarized in three words: Politicians love circumcision.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 03:29 PM
-2

MGM comments are not censored. You must have sounded like assholes. Feminists on the internet are among the best intactivists there are in the West. edit: You can't fight feminism. Why would you try? There's nothing to gain to combating women's rights advocates. We can easily work together. Most feminists on the internet already agree about the human rights aspect of genital integrity for all sexes. Those who don't think male genital cutting is a human right are ignoring all the European and Oce…
/r/MensRights09/11/13 05:05 PM
1

I agree that amputating healthy foreskin is obviously mutilation, but as a word choice, mutilation is only preaching to the choir. By using that word you're immediately alienating men who still think circumcision is a good tradition because foreskin is irreligious, immoral, vestigial, inhuman, or unclean. Unfortunately that's still a lot of people. Speaking to these people, using the word mutilation is the opposite of persuasion. Understanding that female genital modification is not the power re…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 01:36 AM
1

The word mutilation is hurting the argument you're trying to make. Female genital modification is wrong when it is involuntary and non-therapeutic. Male genital modification is wrong when it is involuntary and non-therapeutic. Unless there is a medical reason, people should be permitted to make their own choices about their genitals. American, Jewish and Muslim parents think they own their children's genitals and are justified to perform surgeries to remove the parts of the genitals the parents …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 04:27 AM
4

Actually HIV is about the same as any other STD in this respect too. Circumcision offers very little protection in itself and in total offers negative protection because it makes men more reluctant to use condoms consistently. It can't help that it makes the use of a condom less pleasant for a man's partner as well. Sorry for the wall of text, but these points are all relevant. Use of a condom reduces male sexual sensation, which tends to concern circumcised men more (cf. Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; …
/r/MensRights13/10/13 08:55 PM
1

Informed sexologists speaking up about this is wonderful for intactivism. For a very long time, American sexologists have gotten away with claiming that foreskin is worthless. To quote the actual statement (PDF): The following statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys was agreed upon by the presidents of the six national member organizations of the Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology (NACS) in connection with its annual meeting in Aalborg, Denmark, on October 3-6, 2013: Nordic Assoc…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:12 PM
1

Circumcision is presented as a solution, but it's really an enormous gap in HIV prevention strategies. It is a huge step backwards, away from condoms and real prevention of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy. The African RCTs convinced everyone circumcision could be useful, but they were performed by exceptionally biased researchers. They could not be trusted to have carried out the study honestly. No one has replicated their results in any capacity. In at least one of the studies, more par…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:25 AM
1

This makes it seem like it must not take much of a media push to talk Africans into doing just about anything. I think the circumcision propaganda there is mostly just saying that circumcision is more aesthetically pleasing than phimosis. It seems like Africa just needs a little education on foreskin development, care, and how males can fix phimosis for themselves without circumcision. A lot of people don't know it just takes regular gentle tension to make tight foreskin grow to fit the penis. I…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:17 AM
1

This article is a religious publication reacting to nothing. The most recent Council of Europe statement on circumcision was actually their weakest yet. It sounds like their goal is to allow involuntary "elective" circumcision for males, they just want to regulate it slightly. Intactivism is actually losing the legislative* debate for as long as the doctors of Europe fail to come together to tell politicians how immoral parentally elected infant circumcision is. Scandinavian doctors have done th…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 07:56 AM
7

The science that supports genital cutting is almost all biased by sampling men who would like to be cut. Intact men normally do not want to be cut, because the foreskin is a completely normal part of the penis. Even in America where foreskin is sort of vilified by popular culture, our adult circumcision rate is under 1%. So the overwhelming majority of that tiny fraction of intact men who want to be cut have some kind of problem with their foreskin. It does not fit properly is the most common pr…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 10:15 AM
1

FWIW slits are not all the same. Preputioplasty can look almost perfect, but most guys are unhappy with the appearance of a dorsal slit. I don't agree with involuntary circ at all, but I think a partial circ could be a better than a dorsal slit for some adults.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 07:45 AM
1

The tactile sensitivity lost to circumcision is comparable to the sensitivity that would be lost if all the skin was sliced off all ten fingertips. ﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:19 AM
1

O I'm sorry. You didn't say that you liked the intact guys more overall. I really wasn't expecting you to add that based on everything you had said until then. If it wasn't obvious, I was trying to rationalize why you liked the cut guy more, which wasn't even what you meant. My apologies.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:46 PM
0

It seems pretty clear what the problem was. The two guys were twice as long as the smaller guy who felt better. Did the bigger guys also go straight for your cervix before you were tenting? I'm sorry that happened. That's just bad technique. A big guy doesn't always realize how lightly he needs to go until she wants it. The foreskin can move to reduce friction more than 10 times, so uncut should feel better for a narrow vagina or bigger penis, where there is easily too much friction. Ultimately …
/r/MensRights26/08/13 12:00 AM
0

You did not just lose a massive amount of sensitivity that you say you don't miss. You also lost the ability to dampen orgasmic sensitivity with the foreskin. The foreskin moves forward to shield the sensitive part of the penis from stimulation. That is a part of the normal sexual motion of the intact penis (nsfw). So once they learn how, men with foreskin can have more control over orgasm timing by using their penises differently. Every man deserves the option of keeping his foreskin.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 08:12 PM
0

I definitely wouldn't get cut just to fit in. Uncut is becoming increasingly popular in the US as people realize that foreskin is pretty neat. I assume that to consider circumcision, you must have a problem with your foreskin? It shouldn't be difficult to keep clean. Does it move easily when you are erect? If you want to desensitize your inner penis, the orgasmic part, you can just keep your foreskin retracted for hours at a time. You will lose a lot of sensitivity temporarily and also increase …
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:56 PM
1

So you think that this social or cultural hazing is enough reason to cut someone without his consent?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:20 PM
-1

There are no medical education campaigns promoting its benefits Actually there are. The news in the US talks about reasons parents should cut their infant sons all the time and they rarely mention any reasons to forgo cutting. According to most American popular media, the male foreskin is some kind of vestigial abomination like a tail. An intact penis "had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian" according to a tv show popular in the 90s.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:05 PM
0

You're right and wrong, but you don't seem to know much about FGM. It's true that some forms of female circumcision are worse than male circumcision. There's no doubt about that, but at around 85%, the most common form of female circumcision is Sunnah circumcision practiced by some sects of Muslims. It involves removing exactly the same structure from the vulva that male circumcision removes from the penis. The female prepuce is the clitoral hood. Sunnah circumcision removes much less sensitivit…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:02 PM
1

Precum doesn't contain sperm if a man is not very aroused or if he is aroused but he ejaculates relatively quickly. That is all that the studies have shown. If he's more aroused for a longer time or if he's so aroused that he's edging, it's entirely possible for a little bit of semen to be emitted unnoticed along with his precum. And the semen has sperm, so you might still be technically correct that the precum isn't semen, but what looks like precum can still get people pregnant.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 05:54 PM
1

in my experience an uncircumcised penis can be a little more painful at first during intercourse That's anomalous. Did he have phimosis or something?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:14 AM
2

There are more considerate opinions near the bottom of the page.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:11 AM
1

You've got it all wrong, mate. Your foreskin did not "grow back." That's not how it works. Chances are around 99% you only needed the second cut because the first cut was done badly or healed badly. Those risks are insignificant if genital cutting is performed after a kid is old enough to choose it rather than trying to cut infants without any reason.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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