TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

explauren Archive

View 0 posts and 8 comments by explauren 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)
2

Well, let's put it this way. If I were in Congress and was presented with bill that banned the procedure for everyone but Jews, I'd sign it. But I'm not going to stop trying to convince them, at the same time, that it's just as wrong for them. That said, I think we should allow the ritual nick in both boys and girls. If Jews went back to the original covenant that didn't actually excise skin, that would sit a lot better. The thing that makes genital mutilation mutilation is that it's irreversibl…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 01:25 PM
1

I get what you're saying, but making that exception would severely undermine all of the things that make a circ ban valid. If religion is enough to let you cut your kids' genitals, we'd need to legalize FGM too. I understand why the Jewish community may feel attacked, but their feelings aren't enough to justify letting them mutilate their sons.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:54 AM
3

It's good to be happy with the penis you have. As much as I hate MGM, I don't want people to feel badly about their own bodies. That said, not thinking about it as a human rights issue is a sign that you live in a genital cutting culture. That can be a hard thing to see.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:44 AM
2

Moral relativism. The sons of Jewish parents deserve just as much protection as their non-semetic peers.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:38 AM
3

Why not do both? Trying to ban it doesn't preclude one from also trying to convince people not to mutilate their sons at the same time.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:36 AM
5

It's a human rights violation. We don't perform cosmetic surgery in the absence of pathology on people who can't consent. That's the rule for everything but male circumcision. Every person has the fundamental right to genital integrity - the ability to choose what his or her own genitals look like. Here in the U.S., FGM was covered by insurance until the 70s, and it wasn't outright banned until 1996. A couple of years ago there was massive outcry when AAP (pediatrics association) suggested allow…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:43 PM
5

There are many on either side of the issue. Though it makes no sense to me that removing thousands of nerve endings wouldn't impact sensitivity, published science is divided. ETA: The ability to remember a trauma isn't the standard when determining whether a person was harmed. Consider people who are drugged and raped. If they don't remember it, so what? No, we can't have that as a rule. You may not feel traumatized now (which is good - as anti-circ as I am, I certainly don't want people to feel…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:37 PM
2

You're right of course, but people frequently react irrationally negatively to calling it mutilation; that's not what you want if you're trying to get MGM banned. In those cases, I prefer referring to FGM as female genital cutting. People are so used to hearing mutilation instead that you get them to do the thinking about why they say RIC instead of MGM. And if they ask you about it, it's easy to say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ideally, MGM would've been banned at the same …
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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