TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

intactisnormal Archive

View 0 posts and 1,688 comments by intactisnormal 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,688 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
10

We already covered this in a different chain, though you're trying to put a spin on it to them deciding for themselves. It's the incorrect approach, the question is when can the parent intervene on the child's body. So here are the medical ethics again. The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal consi…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:40 PM
9

Which means that religious people can circumcise if they want to. People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights10/06/23 07:28 PM
2

You brush off the antibiotics/alternative treatments issue as if it’s no big deal What is this? I don't brush it off. I state that there are alternatives if the first line treatment standard antibiotics fails. Note that: The first line treatment is antibiotics. There's an order here. You start off with first line treatments which are very effective in most cases and not invasive. If that fails, then you go to other alternatives. Which are still typically medications. Removing body parts is usual…
/r/MensRights07/06/23 05:17 PM
11

If the first line treatment of antibiotics fails, then you go to alternative treatments. Which btw is still not circumcision. I have to point out that you already have to circumcise 118 boys (!) to prevent a single UTI. Which even you admit can be treated most of the time. So you're down to a subset, of a subset. And if the first line treatment of antibiotics fail, then there are different treatments too. And don't forget the bar that you have to prove: medical necessity. You have a long way to …
/r/MensRights06/06/23 02:29 AM
17

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens. "An estima…
/r/MensRights06/06/23 02:04 AM
3

You make a claim his data comes from the epicenter of circumcision? Prove it! Is this really what you're down to? Trying to nitpick around the outsides? And then no doubt on any of those items you will try to act as if you've won the entire discussion. It's a common tactic/fallacy and it's easy to see through. But sure: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/gzijge/circumcision_across_the_globe_by_subnational/ That authors sources: Circumcision Prevalence of circumcision Worldwide Circumcision…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 09:09 PM
2

Lol dude, I don’t need to ‘prove the opposite’. Morris is the one making a grand claim, and Morris is the one that needs to back up his claim. And I’m showing how terrible Morris’ substantiation is. Yup. It’s that easy. You don’t like this, so you try to twist it around that I must prove this or that of your choosing. It’s easy to see through. I don’t need to do any of that, I’m just showing how terrible Morris’s substantiation is. Which I’ve done: Looking at how few countries there are, the wea…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 08:12 PM
4

What is this? Morris includes 3 studies from the US (and an “Adam and Eve” website survey). Really. Source 16 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1265180/ Here’s what I said: First study is from 1976 in Georgia. 1976. That puts the respondents born approximately between 1954 to 1958. This is so incredibly old. Source 17 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01614576.1988.11074930 Here’s what I said: Second study They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 08:11 PM
5

Oh more twisting, but you respond to yourself to try to hide it or something. Same thing, so why did Morris himself include it in his section on woman preference? Lol it's about that easy. You're again trying the most bizarre twisting to demand it must say exactly this or that when Morris himself included it in his section on woman preference, before trying to get out of it of course. Once again you show exactly why medical ethics goes the direction they do. The burden of proof is on you to prov…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 06:23 PM
3

I assume you are referring to the medical ethics? Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. counterevidence lol what is this? Dude already covered: Many things here. First, I d…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 06:18 PM
5

Lol did you even read that right? Ranking circumcised 1.8 and uncircumcised 8.0/10, and you want to suggest ??? I don't even know you just want to get out of it by twisting words. Remember this was a study that was in Morris's paper, in the section about women preferences, and a study that Morris tries to get out of. That's right, Morris included it in that section. So whatever bizarre twisting you're trying to do makes no sense, you're just trying to get out of it even more than Morris lol. And…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 06:12 PM
5

Dude, it's not inclusion, it's complete reliance on very old papers and on Africa to make a misleading title. Seriously. While ignoring and trying to get out of studies that show no difference or that woman prefer uncircumcised. All so that he can make a title that people won't read past. But, like I said, when you actually read the paper you realize how terrible it is. If he wanted to make a more accurate title, it would be some women born in the 1950s and 1960s located in the epicenter of circ…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 05:52 PM
5

When you read through that study you realize how terrible it is. There are plenty of counter studies right in the paper, the data that prefers circumcised is horribly old, and he relies heavily on Africa. The US: First study is from 1976 in Georgia. 1976. That puts the respondents born approximately between 1954 to 1958. This is so incredibly old. Second study They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’s biased. This is a study from 1988. Keep in mind the r…
/r/MensRights27/05/23 05:09 PM
8

Some info for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights18/05/23 08:36 PM
10

It's not medically needed, not by a long shot. So that means the decision goes to the patienf themself, later in life. For medical information I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision I recommend watching these presentations: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and stat…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 04:35 PM
0

Ill stick with advice from major clinics. And you try to shut out medical information. Uncut basic hygiene outcome < cut basic hygiene outcome And back to it again: Basic hygiene is easy. There needs to be medical necessity to circumcise others, eg a newborn. So you can think whatever you want about hygiene and as such you are free to circumcise yourself. To circumcise others, eg a newborn, you must show medical necessity. You keep deflecting from that Addressed every time. BTW you are the one t…
/r/MensRights19/04/23 02:40 AM
0

Nah plenty of health benefits Already covered, the stats are terrible. outway any potential risk. Already covered, the standard to intervene is not benefits vs risks. It is medical necessity. The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is…
/r/MensRights18/04/23 10:29 PM
0

Basic hygiene is all anyone needs to know regarding hygiene. But if you want to, you are free to circumcise yourself. The standard to intervene on someone else's body, eg a newborn, is medical necessity.
/r/MensRights18/04/23 08:23 PM
0

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would need to have 118 sons (!) and circumcise all of them to prevent a single UTI. And UTI’s "can easily be tre…
/r/MensRights18/04/23 07:51 PM
1

You can be glad. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. Unless it's medically necessary they can decide for themselves later in life.
/r/MensRights30/03/23 09:24 PM
1

"This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." There is 20% that it does not work.
/r/MensRights10/03/23 04:29 AM
1

You're going to have to be more specific on what you're referring to. Are you suggesting that circumcision is the correct method? That other methods are not "correct"? For which item please and thank you. And why is the normal treatment or prevention not implemented first? Keep in mind that removing body parts is typically regarded as the absolute last resort. Done only when all other options have been exhausted and with the express consent of the patient themself. And don't forget, the burden o…
/r/MensRights10/03/23 04:28 AM
1

That circumcision is not medically necessary? You have this backwards as I'll address more below in the medical ethics. Those that want to circumcise others have to prove medical necessity. That's where the burden of proof is. But we can cover the medicine. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can…
/r/MensRights09/03/23 05:29 PM
1

When 99% of circumcisions are done routinely at birth without medical indication, that is what's being discussed. If you really want: Routine circumcision at birth without individual medical indication is very far from being medically necessary.
/r/MensRights09/03/23 04:52 PM
2

And you don’t like that the burden of proof is on you to prove medical necessity, so you try to turn the tables. That was easy to see through. No one has to prove the importance of a body part in order to keep it. That’s completely backwards. Those that want to remove other people’s body parts have to prove medical necessity. That’s exactly why medical ethics goes the direction they do. Science and medicine are the one that has to constantly and continuously prove itself. That's literally how sc…
/r/MensRights22/02/23 05:52 PM
2

The issue is body autonomy. Without medical need the decision always goes to the patient themselves, later in life. They decide for their own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a sub…
/r/MensRights18/02/23 09:14 PM
4

medical benefits ... that can actually be quantified Good let's quantify it. And go over the normal treatments and preventions. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glan…
/r/MensRights11/02/23 09:21 PM
8

Incorrect, if anything its been corroborated by Bossio's study.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 08:40 PM
5

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" UTI con't: : "...most experts believe that UTIs in children with normal kidneys do not result in long…
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:24 PM
7

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:23 PM
8

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:22 PM
11

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:20 PM
3

that's not really an argument against it. No one needs to make an argument against it. Those that want to circumcise others have to make an argument for it. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants n…
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:19 PM
5

Dr. Guest discusses through examples of the ape family how the trend of heavily innervated foreskin is a sign of evolutionary advancement from the lower primate species. It likely contributes to pair bonding, evolutionarily important for the male to stay and care for offspring.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:16 PM
2

One idiot going against procedure (and fired for it iirc) is not it being "promoted" as an actual policy. You are confusing very different things. Oh I also forgot to mention, Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 09:42 PM
3

Poison the well fallacy. With incorrect information too, Canada has medically assisted suicide, but it is not "promoted".
/r/MensRights09/02/23 09:31 PM
3

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights09/02/23 09:27 PM
1

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" UTI con't: : "...most experts believe that UTIs in children with normal kidneys do not result in long…
/r/MensRights09/02/23 09:25 PM
3

See my comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10x2wt7/circumcision_is_the_most_basic_and_obvious_ways/j7rll1f/
/r/MensRights09/02/23 09:25 PM
4

See my comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10x2wt7/circumcision_is_the_most_basic_and_obvious_ways/j7rll1f/
/r/MensRights08/02/23 10:26 PM
18

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with an antifungal cream if…
/r/MensRights08/02/23 10:25 PM
1

Let’s see here, about 25 spam messages from the stalker. And can the stalker say anything? Nope, it’s just blank spam messages. I seriously can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights27/01/23 05:56 AM
1

Let’s see here, about 25 spam messages from the stalker. And can the stalker say anything? Nope, it’s just blank spam messages. I seriously can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights27/01/23 05:56 AM
1

Let’s see here, about 25 spam messages from the stalker. And can the stalker say anything? Nope, it’s just blank spam messages. I seriously can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights27/01/23 05:56 AM
1

Oh I have a count this time, that’s 26 blank spam messages from the stalker! I can’t stop laughing. All the stalker can do is spam nonsense fallacy. Now show everyone again!
/r/MensRights11/01/23 04:20 AM
1

Oh I have a count this time, that’s 26 blank spam messages from the stalker! I can’t stop laughing. All the stalker can do is spam nonsense fallacy. Now show everyone again!
/r/MensRights11/01/23 04:20 AM
1

And everyone welcome the stalker! The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information that the stalker has to follow me around to attack. Oh I have a count this time, that’s 26 blank spam messages from the stalker! I can’t stop laughing. All the stalker can do is spam nonsense fallacy. Now show everyone again!
/r/MensRights11/01/23 04:20 AM
1

Oh missed another one, but that's the whole point of the stalker's spam tactic. I can't stop laughing. It must be around 17 or 18 actually spam messages now! Who knows how many I’ve missed. Well that’s the spam tactic the stalker wants, spam so much that some are missed! I can’t stop laughing. The stalker doesn’t seem to realize the more the stalker spams, the more they show they can’t do anything else! I can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 04:27 PM
1

UTI's can easily be treated with standard antibiotics. Circumcision is not medically necessary to reduce UTI infections. Suffice to say, vaccines are medically necessary.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 04:10 PM
1

It must be around 17 or 18 actually spam messages now! Who knows how many I’ve missed. Well that’s the spam tactic the stalker wants, spam so much that some are missed! I can’t stop laughing. The stalker doesn’t seem to realize the more the stalker spams, the more they show they can’t do anything else! I can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 04:02 PM
1

It must be around 17 or 18 actually spam messages now! Who knows how many I’ve missed. Well that’s the spam tactic the stalker wants, spam so much that some are missed! I can’t stop laughing. The stalker doesn’t seem to realize the more the stalker spams, the more they show they can’t do anything else! I can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights10/01/23 04:01 PM
1

90% reduction is the relative risk, which sounds impressive until you realize that it takes it from ~1% to ~0.1%. So the absolute number is: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” Note that’s the exact same data set, presented in two different ways. Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would need to have 118 sons (!) and circumcise all of them to prevent a …
/r/MensRights10/01/23 03:32 PM
3

Oh another one I’m not even sure how many the stalker is spamming now, as the stalker desperately tries to double down. I think it’s around 15 or 16 now! But that’s just more to laugh at! It just shows how the stalker relies on spamming more and more blank replies! I seriously can’t stop laughing. That’s all the stalker can do!
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:56 PM
3

Oh missed one I’m not even sure how many the stalker is spamming now, as the stalker desperately tries to double down. I think it’s around 15 or 16 now! But that’s just more to laugh at! It just shows how the stalker relies on spamming more and more blank replies! I seriously can’t stop laughing. That’s all the stalker can do!
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:56 PM
3

I’m not even sure how many the stalker is spamming now, as the stalker desperately tries to double down. I think it’s around 15 or 16 now! But that’s just more to laugh at! It just shows how the stalker relies on spamming more and more blank replies! I seriously can’t stop laughing. That’s all the stalker can do!
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:55 PM
0

It really is fun to watch the stalker's need to attack. I can't stop laughing. All because he doesn't like basic medical information.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:47 PM
0

I am laughing my ass off. My poor throat is dry from laughter. And the stalker really does want me to block them so they can do their attacks without me pointing out their need to attack. So very easy to see through.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:43 PM
1

That's exactly what the stalker wants so they can attack without it being pointed out. It's so easy to see through. But the stalker doesn't realize that it's a comedy show to me. I can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:38 PM
20

And everyone welcome the stalker! The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information that they have to stalk and attack others! I can’t stop laughing. For months! That's how perturbed the stalker is and how much the stalker needs to attack. I can't stop laughing. The stalker is now up to spamming 12 blank messages across various threads! AKA the nonsense fallacy. I can’t stop laughing! This is what the stalker is down to. Yup, the stalker’s absolute need to attack is on full display for e…
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:01 PM
85

There is study’s saying it prevents infections From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and ca…
/r/MensRights06/01/23 07:23 PM
8

I'm very happy to be circumcised You can be happy. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else. Without medical necessity, the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. The rationalizations for infant circumcision make sense to me Addressed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/zosw2k/woman_protesting_infant_circumcision_in_ocean/j0rcgr9/ flap of skin The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes)…
/r/MensRights18/12/22 09:02 PM
5

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would need to have 118 sons (!) and circumcise all of them to prevent a single UTI. And UTI’s "can easily be tr…
/r/MensRights18/12/22 08:58 PM
6

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would need to have 118 sons (!) and circumcise all of them to prevent a single UTI. And UTI’s "can easily be tr…
/r/MensRights18/12/22 08:57 PM
5

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights18/12/22 08:47 PM
2

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights15/11/22 08:57 PM
1

You don't get sensation from a body part that was removed. rding to this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/ Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the…
/r/MensRights12/11/22 05:12 PM
5

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with an antifungal cream if…
/r/MensRights10/11/22 09:13 PM
3

It's quite something fun to watch the stalker run around trying to attack the other. Another 6 rounder! Yup, all the stalker can do is spam the same attack. I wonder if the stalker realizes that the more the stalker does this, the more the stalker shows the world that they can only do this. You know, they can only stalk, harass, and attack when given basic medical information. And I'm laughing again! Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narr…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 07:16 PM
2

Yup, another one of the same bizarre lashing out. Another 6 rounder! Yup, all the stalker can do is spam the same attack. I wonder if the stalker realizes that the more the stalker does this, the more the stalker shows the world that they can only do this. You know, they can only stalk, harass, and attack when given basic medical information. And I'm laughing again! Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. A…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 07:16 PM
1

Three of the exact same from the stalker! Can't even come up with original attacks. I'm laughing again. Another 6 rounder! Yup, all the stalker can do is spam the same attack. I wonder if the stalker realizes that the more the stalker does this, the more the stalker shows the world that they can only do this. You know, they can only stalk, harass, and attack when given basic medical information. And I'm laughing again! Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the biza…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 07:16 PM
1

Only 6 messages from the stalker this round? Is the stalker "fatigu[ing]" themself? Looks like the stalker is stuck on repeat again. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in this response the stalker really seems to want to bog the other down with podiatrists doing heart surgery, how to do math, bike shop ???, cult, Dunning Kruger, etc. And the stalker wants the other to seem to sp…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:58 PM
2

Only 6 messages from the stalker this round? Is the stalker "fatigu[ing]" themself? The stalker is still on the same old bizzareness. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in this response the stalker really seems to want to bog the other down with podiatrists doing heart surgery, how to do math, bike shop ???, cult, Dunning Kruger, etc. And the stalker wants the other to seem to s…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:58 PM
3

Only 6 messages from the stalker this round? Is the stalker "fatigu[ing]" themself? The stalker really doesn't seem to like me pointing out the stalker's tactics, so really wants to attack them. Seemingly so the other doesn't point them out. Too much fun to watch. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in this response the stalker really seems to want to bog the other down with podi…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:58 PM
1

Now we have message 4 of 9 from the stalker. Yup. The stalker needs to spam messages in an attempt to "fatigue" the other. Easy to see through. I can't stop laughing, the stalker can't even write anything new. And we just addressed this! Yup. The stalker needs to ignore in order to continue the stalker's bizarre attacks. I'm laughing again. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in …
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:29 PM
2

Now we have message 3 of 9 from the stalker. Yup. The stalker needs to spam messages in an attempt to "fatigue" the other. Easy to see through. Again the same message! And we just addressed this! Yup. The stalker needs to ignore in order to continue the stalker's bizarre attacks. I'm laughing again. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in this response the stalker really seems to …
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:29 PM
3

Now we have message 2 of 9 from the stalker. Yup. The stalker needs to spam messages in an attempt to "fatigue" the other. Easy to see through. Same message too! The stalker can't do anything else. And we just addressed this! Yup. The stalker needs to ignore in order to continue the stalker's bizarre attacks. I'm laughing again. Here we see the stalker’s old tactic to bog the other down to refute the bizarre things and narratives that the stalker makes up. Already addressed: Yeah in this respons…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 04:29 PM
1

I'm not him so I'm not going to take on that exact number. But some info for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights14/10/22 03:46 PM
1

It is also carried out for healthcare reasons. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and ca…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 03:44 PM
3

Everyone welcome the stalker! The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk. Just to harass and attack even more. And the stalker is back to spamming messages! This is message 14 of 15 from the stalker in this round. The more the stalker stalks, the more the stalker shows they can only stalk, harass, and attack. I can’t stop laughing. Boy the stalker is really stuck on this particular attack for the moment. Hey we’ve already seen this one. The stalker can’t even co…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 03:29 PM
3

Everyone welcome the stalker! The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk. Just to harass and attack even more. And the stalker is back to spamming messages! This is message 13 of 15 from the stalker in this round. The more the stalker stalks, the more the stalker shows they can only stalk, harass, and attack. I can’t stop laughing. Hey we’ve already seen this one. The stalker can’t even come up with an original attack, As bizarre as this one is. So already calle…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 03:29 PM
2

Everyone welcome the stalker! The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk. Just to harass and attack even more. And the stalker is back to spamming messages! This is message 12 of 15 from the stalker in this round. The more the stalker stalks, the more the stalker shows they can only stalk, harass, and attack. I can’t stop laughing. Hey we’ve already seen this one. The stalker can’t even come up with an original attack, As bizarre as this one is. So already calle…
/r/MensRights14/10/22 03:29 PM
10

equivalent of cutting off the head of the penis I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/MensRights14/10/22 02:03 AM
7

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/MensRights14/10/22 02:02 AM
4

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights14/10/22 02:01 AM
1

And everyone welcome the stalker! Yup. The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk! Just to harass and attack even more. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. This is message 6 of 14 from the stalker in this round. And everyone can see the stalker's reliance on the gross out tactic. The stalker can't discuss the actual subject, so the stalker tries to gross out the other person. Easy …
/r/MensRights03/10/22 02:43 AM
1

And everyone welcome the stalker! Yup. The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk! Just to harass and attack even more. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. This is message 8 of 14 from the stalker in this round. And the stalker again doubles down on the gross out tactic, and changing what's actually written. And of course the stalker doesn't like that the stalker is running around …
/r/MensRights03/10/22 02:43 AM
1

And everyone welcome the stalker! Yup. The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk! Just to harass and attack even more. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. This is message 9 of 14 from the stalker in this round. Now the stalker tries to ??? lash out that the replies are too short? It makes no sense. But then again the stalker just relies on these kind of fallacies and tactics. It's…
/r/MensRights03/10/22 02:43 AM
1

And everyone welcome the stalker! Yup. The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk! Just to harass and attack even more. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. This is message 10 of 14 from the stalker in this round. With the stalker trying to play the fool again! That was fun to see. I can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights03/10/22 02:42 AM
3

And everyone welcome the stalker! Yup. The stalker was so perturbed by basic medical information they have to stalk! Just to harass and attack even more. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. This is message 13 of 14 from the stalker in this round. And the stalker doesn't like that I give medical information, so the stalker attacks the very act of doing so. Yup. And the stalker attacks again! I can't stop laughing. T…
/r/MensRights03/10/22 02:41 AM
3

most circumcised men don't care Consider that it takes an incredible amount of effort to even rethink such an ingrained and socially enforced procedure. And then to actively decide they didn't want it, rather than simply accepting it. Plus men who think there were medical reasons for their circumcision, or aren’t informed about the anatomy are more likely to be satisfied: “we find that greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile anatomy predicts greater satisfaction w…
/r/MensRights02/10/22 06:22 PM
5

The first issue is body autonomy. Unless there is medical need, people have autonomy over their own body and medical decisions always go to the patient themselves (later in life) to decide for their own body. Second, The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of dec…
/r/MensRights02/10/22 06:03 PM
8

But isnt circumcision a choice made by your parents The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authori…
/r/MensRights02/10/22 06:00 PM
1

And we see the stalkers gross out tactic for a second time in this round. I can’t stop laughing. Quite a long gross out tactic by the stalker too. Back to writing the narratives which I already called out: And says the guy that has written several long, bizarre narratives! I’ve lost track of how many! And I’ll point out that it’s becoming increasingly outlandish every time I don’t take the bait and just call it out. I can’t stop laughing. And this was after the stalker said: “I want others to be…
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:30 PM
1

And the stalker doubles down on the gross out tactic. That was easy to see through. THis is what the stalker is down to because they can’t discuss the actual topic. And because the attacks in the stalker’s other chains go nowhere. It really is something to watch the stalker run around between fallacies.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:30 PM
1

And now the stalker doesn’t like that the stalker's actions are being called out, so tries to get the other to not call them out. That was easy to see through. Followed by lashing out! Also easy to see through. It really is something to watch the stalker run around in fallacies.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:29 PM
1

And now the stalker plays the fool. Again just goes to show you how the stalker wants to stalk, harass, and attack without response. I'm laughing again.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:29 PM
1

Is this a continuation of the stalker's gross out tactic? Seems like it. To distract away from the stalker's attacks. As always, it's quite the thing to watch the stalker run around between fallacies/tactics. That's all the stalker can do.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 04:04 AM
1

And the stalker doesn't like being called out, so the stalker attacks the very act of me calling the stalker out! That was easy to see through. Just goes to show you how the stalker wants to stalk, harass, and attack without response. The stalker doesn't have to worry, because it really is something to watch the stalker try to get out of the stalker's attacks and fallacies.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:58 AM
1

And the stalker's back to gross out tactic! Been a minute there. I'm laughing again. Was this to distract away from the stalker's attacks? Probably. But in any case, it really is something to watch the stalker run around between fallacies.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:57 AM
1

And the stalker doubles down on trying to distract away from the stalker's attacks! That was easy to see through. I can't stop laughing. It really is something to watch the stalker run around trying to attack.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:57 AM
2

And the stalker doesn't like being referred to as the stalker (what the stalker literally is), so the stalker lashes out at it! That was easy to see through. Again, just shows how the stalker wants to stalk, harass, and attack without the other person calling the stalker out. This is what the stalker is down to. It sure is something to watch.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:52 AM
2

And the stalker doesn't like me pointing out how the stalker just stalked, so the stalker has to attack that. I'm laughing again. The stalker just continues to show how they want to stalk, harass, and attack without response. Yup. That's about it here. It sure is quite the thing to watch.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:44 AM
2

And the stalker doesn't like that the stalker just stalked and spammed a whole new round of messages, so has to question "this round". It makes no sense. But this is what the stalker is down to. And now the stalker tries to portray the stalker's failure as the other persons. It makes no sense. But just shows how the stalker wants to stalk, harass, and attack without recourse. Already called this out: You want to stalk and harass without the other person responding. Yup. That's what you want. It'…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:37 AM
1

And you continue to show your new tactic. And your bizarre narrative making continues. Yup. Especially odd when you are the one stalking me. I'm laughing again. And when you are the one spamming multiple replies. Yup. And when you are the one that wants invites the other to stalk you. I can't stop laughing. Something tells me that you'll want to shut that out too. Or is this all projection and the thing where you stalk and attack because that's your way of doing what you project? Or is it the si…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:06 AM
1

Yup you show your next tactic, shut it out. Quickly followed by more attacks! You can't make this up. I'm laughing again. I think this just reinforces how you want to attack without recourse! It's all so much fun to watch you run around in these fallacies.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:06 AM
1

Quick, distract away from your bizarre narratives that you write! That was easy to see through. Quickly followed by an attack! You can't make this up. I'm laughing again. It really is something to watch your need to attack.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:05 AM
3

And part 3 of everyone welcome the stalker! He was so perturbed by basic medical information he has to follow me around to attack. Here we see the stalkers pretty much admitted attempt to spam the other with replies in an attempt to "fatigue" them. In this reply the stalker doubles down on these bizarre narratives he writes to attack the other person. Yup. It really is something to watch. Here it is: Yeah in this response you really seem to want to bog the other down with podiatrists doing heart…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 03:05 AM
3

Some info for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) I also recommend watching these presentations. This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20s Long but informative. This presentation from Ethicist Brian Earp excellently covers the medical ethics, cultural…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 02:03 AM
1

And you don’t like your attack sprees (my mistake, it should be plural) being pointed out, so you attack it being pointed out! Seen that before. Or is this a distraction from, you know, says the guy that has shown the world they rely on stalking and harassment. You know, all that projection with your attacks. And I’m laughing again!
/r/MensRights28/09/22 01:56 AM
1

What even is this? First your tone was very much to wave away your attacks as if they can’t be attacks. Second, this doesn’t even make any sense because I’m calling out your attacks. Or is this you trying to persuade the other into attacking you back? That’s the only way this makes any sense. Well that’s just your next tactic: Invite/want the other to descend to your level so that you can think/feel/say that it’s all the same. That was easy to see through. Unfortunately for you, you are the one …
/r/MensRights28/09/22 01:56 AM
1

And you’re back to writing your bizarre narratives. Not as long as the previous ones, but a bizarre narrative nonetheless. Just trying to create anything to attack. Yup, that was easy to see through. Here it is: Yeah in this response you really seem to want to bog the other down with podiatrists doing heart surgery, how to do math, bike shop ???, cult, Dunning Kruger, etc. And you want the other to seem to spend time refuting each of these.And I’ll point out that it’s becoming Increasingly outla…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 01:55 AM
1

What is this? You stalk, harass, and attack, then you pretty much suggest you don't want the other to respond. Well tactic confirmed: You want to stalk and harass without the other person responding. Yup. That's what you want. It's quite the other way around, it's hilarious that you think you can stalk and harass and not have the other person call you out! And when they do, you try to put it as ??? a failure on them? It makes no sense. Unless of course that you want to stalk, harass and attack w…
/r/MensRights27/09/22 04:13 AM
1

And it seems you don't like your attacks, so you try to suggest that ??? a stranger can not attack others? And that internet comments can not be attacks? It makes no sense. Buin any case you try to deny your attacks. But then you quickly follow it with attacks! You can't make this up. X1. X2. I can't stop laughing. Is this your narrative tactic again? It's not as long as your previous narratives that you wrote to talk to yourself with. But it's a narrative nonetheless. You just need to create so…
/r/MensRights27/09/22 04:13 AM
1

And more attacks! I can't stop laughing. I think we already covered this: BTW, says the guy that is actively stalking for the sole purpose of going on an attack spree. You can’t make this up. I’m laughing again. And says the guy that has written several long, bizarre narratives! I’ve lost track of how many! And I’ll point out that it’s becoming increasingly outlandish every time I don’t take the bait and just call it out. I can’t stop laughing. And your attacks continue! You need to go on an att…
/r/MensRights27/09/22 04:13 AM
1

And more doubling down on the gross out tactic. That’s all you have And again no response to how you really want to stalk, harass, and attack without recourse. That’s what you really want, so you go for the gross out tactic in a vain attempt to get the other to not respond. It’s hilarious to watch you run around in these fallacies and tactics.
/r/MensRights27/09/22 02:39 AM
1

First you have no response to how you want to attack without recourse. Second you have no counter to me pointing out how you try to gross the other out, so you double down on it! That was easy to see through. You have no choice but to try to distract away from your fallacies, so you try the juvenile attempt to change the word to gross the other person out. Which makes this, wait for it, a strawman fallacy! Yup. It really is something to watch you rely on these fallacies and tactics.
/r/MensRights27/09/22 02:39 AM
1

Oh you vomit when your tactics are called out? That you rely on spamming? That you can’t even keep your own attacks straight? Your own tactics are so abhorrent that you have a visceral reaction to it, you can't make this up. And now you go for openly ignoring me calling out your tactics. So now on to your next tactic: shutting it out. Yup. That was easy to see through. This is your action. It’s quite the thing to watch.
/r/MensRights27/09/22 02:39 AM
1

And now we see your next tactic, you want to stalk and harass without the other person responding. Yup. That's what you want. It's quite the other way around, it's hilarious that you think you can stalk and harass and not have the other person call you out! And when they do, you try to put it as ??? a failure on them? It makes no sense. Unless of course that you want to stalk, harass and attack without recourse. So really you just show your tactic!
/r/MensRights26/09/22 04:52 PM
1

And you still don't like me pointing out your fallacies and tactics, so you keep trying to attack the very act of me doing so! I will point out all your fallacies, attacks and tactics. Shall I call this one out now? You show again that you want to stalk and harass without recourse! Yup. That was easy to see through. You really do. Whenever it’s called out you say you won’t ever stop. You really want to continue to stalk and harass without the other person responding! This is what you’re down to.…
/r/MensRights26/09/22 04:51 PM
1

Are you admitting to your next tactic? Spam multiple chains in an attempt to overwhelm the other, so that they give up? I can't stop laughing. This is what you're down to. Attacking isn't enough, you have to spam attacks. That's part of why you went stalking btw, that was easy to see through. Wasn’t news to me. It was so easy to see through. And real world activities? Weren't you just insinuating that the other person had no real world activities? You can't make this up! You just need to find so…
/r/MensRights26/09/22 04:51 PM
1

Oh my mistake, it just so much fun to point out your next fallacy. You know, how you denied harassing and the admitted to harassing. I was laughing so hard I skipped right to that and forgot to finish the first point. Which was that you don't like me pointing out your stalking and harassing, so you attack the act of pointing it out. BTW notice you don't respond to how you denied harassing and the admitted to harassing. Quick, find something else to attack! I'm laughing again! And you keep trying…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:39 PM
1

And you don't like that I call out your fallacies and tactics, so you again try to attack the very act of me doing so! Boy that was easy to see through. Just another variation on a theme.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:35 PM
1

Hey we've seen this tactic before, have you forgotten? 1) You don't like me pointing out your attacks, so you try to attack the very act of doing so. 2)Yup, you really don't like me pointing out all your fallacies. So you really keep lashing out at it. This time in the most bizarre way, to try to gross the other out or something. It's so easy to see through. This is what you're down to. It really is quite the thing to watch.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:33 PM
1

You don't like that Second, now you admit to stalking and harassing? Right after you denied harassing? You said "I'm not harassing you." Then "That I don't like what I'm choosing to do?" in response to harassing. You can't even keep yourself straight with all your running around in fallacies! You can't make this up. It's really quite the thing to watch you do this. And the cherry on top of this is that you then scream "LEARN ENGLISH." Which is just hilarious. Oh man quite the thing to watch. And…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:32 PM
1

Keep showing how you rely on stalking and trying to get others to bandwagon! Right after you claimed you aren't trying to harass. You literally can't make this up.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:27 PM
1

And even more demonstration of your stalking and harassment! I can't stop laughing. Followed by attacks! You can't make this up. That's all you have and you just keep showing it. It's hilarious to watch.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:24 PM
1

And even more stalking! And even more attacks! You really can't make this up! It really is incredible that you think you can attack your way out of your attacks! And you end with another attack! You know the more you do this the more you show the world you rely on attacking! I can't stop laughing. It really is something to watch you run around in fallacies.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:21 PM
1

And more stalking! And more attacks! You can't make this up! You really show that's what you're down to!
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:20 PM
1

And now you don't like that you are literally stalking and harassing in reddit. What else would you call stalking, attacking, and even trying to get others to bandwagon on like you just did. Really. It seems you don't like your actions, so you have to distance yourself from your own literal actions. Literally stalking and harassing. You'll notice the difference is that I was giving medical information, and then calling out your fallacies and tactics to get out of it. Which continues with all you…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:19 PM
1

And you double down on your unveiled threat to harass. Is this your unveiled threat to harass? Well that's your next tactic! Attacking wasn't enough, so now you're down to stalking and harassing to further your attacks. You can't make this up. It's incredible to think that you can attack your way out of your attacks. It's easy to see through. And this is all your reaction to basic medical information. I'm not kidding when I say it's quite the thing to watch. I can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:07 PM
1

And you're back to stalking and attacking! This is not a good thing for you, like you try to portray. And back to attacking! Not quite the making up the fake narratives like before, but what was that about talking to yourself? It's just projection at this point. You can't make this up! And of course you don't respond to what's actually said how 1) you essentially asked for information, and 2) how you are free to not give a damn. Just back to attacks. Yup.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 05:01 PM
1

I can say I disagree with them and make them go away Ignoring the medical ethics does not make them go away. That was easy. They never had to be followed to begin with. And you’re still back to it’s legal. Yup. After all that stuff that you don’t like that your argument boils down to it’s legal. So your argument boils down to it's legal. Well we already covered this: That it's currently legal does not mean that it's medically ethical. Or medically necessary, which is the standard to intervene on…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 04:39 PM
1

Part 2 of 2 It’s safer to do it sooner rather than later Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “This claim is based on retrospective comparisons on non-concurrent studies using dissimilar populations, dissimilar methods and criteria for identifying complications, and they fail to adequately control for the method used, the device, the skill of the practitioner, the environment, and so on. So this claim which is oft repeated why it must be done early, because you’re running…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 04:39 PM
1

Part 1 of 2 Stop repeating yourself. And now you demand the other stop addressing what you say. Your argument really does boil down to it’s legal, although my mistake I should not have put that in quotations since you did directly say that. Fixed. That you constantly say and rely on that the parents have the right, aka the legal right, is exactly you relying on that it’s legal. That does not make an argument that it’s medically necessary or medically ethical. That’s about it. TACTIC CONFIRMED! H…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 04:39 PM
1

You need to read the ENTIRE article you keep linking What even is this? I’m the one that is linking the much fuller quotation and you are the one that literally just tried to cherry pick. Literally. So let’s see it again, bolding The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong co…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 04:38 PM
1

Imagine And your attacks start again. X1. X2. X3. X4. X5. X6. X7. X9. X10. IIRC that’s a little shy of your record. So I’m giving medical information. You don’t like that, so you have to attack it. Yup that’s about it. Imagine BTW, says the guy that is actively stalking for the sole purpose of going on an attack spree. You can’t make this up. I laughing again. And says the guy that has written several long, bizarre narratives! I’ve lost track of how many! And I’ll point out that it’s becoming In…
/r/MensRights25/09/22 04:37 PM
1

And you show even more how you need to stalk and attack! X2. I can't stop laughing. This is your reaction to basic medical information. It really is something to watch your descent into fallacies and attack sprees. And this is all your reaction to basic medical information.
/r/MensRights23/09/22 09:05 PM
1

You didn’t address It was all addressed, but I see you continue with: Evidence FROM THE CPA says the benefits outweigh the risks No they didn't. Literally did not. Literally. They said “Because the medical risk:benefit ratio of routine newborn male circumcision is closely balanced when current research is reviewed (Table 1), it is challenging to make definitive recommendations for the entire male newborn population in Canada.” And their top line recommendation: “The CPS does not recommend the ro…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 07:35 PM
1

And you are free to decide for your own body. Yup. It's that easy. But to intervene on someone else's body the standard is medical necessity. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitut…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 07:35 PM
1

So your argument boils down to "it's legal". Well we already covered this: That it's currently legal does not mean that it's medically ethical. Or medically necessary, which is the standard to intervene on someone else's body. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics. You don't have to go very far to find examples of terrible practices that occurred. Just give it a thought. There's a reason why the Hippocratic Oath is "First Do No Harm", and not "make sure it's legal". We are dis…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 07:35 PM
1

And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separate this from the discussion of medical necessity. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics.…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 07:35 PM
1

Wait are you admitting to ignoring them now? All this time before you said you disagreed with them, or they don't apply, or some other way of getting out of them. Now you fully and openly admit to ignoring the medical ethics? Well at least you're admitting it now. But it still doesn't make them go away. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippo…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:49 PM
1

Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separate this from the discussion of medical necessity. There's an entire terrible hist…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:46 PM
1

Circumcision isn’t harmful. And you try to move the goalposts again! That was easy to see through. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – …
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:45 PM
1

What is this? You're linking the Canadian Paediatrics Society as if it supports you? Ok we can give the stats to the items: From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (b…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:41 PM
1

One way or another you don't want to see the medical ethics. Don't you worry, the medical ethics will be given when needed. And it's almost like we've covered this: All you try to do is run away from the medical ethics. Ignoring the medical ethics does not make them go away. It’s that simple.
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:26 PM
1

Not any other people. Hey we already covered this: Which are literally other people. Literally. Covered more below. You do realize other people have rights, you know. That includes body autonomy. Let's discuss: Who has rights? Really, who has them? The answer is: Individuals have rights. Individual people have inherent and fundamental human rights. Individuals can practice whatever they'd like to on themselves. But to infringe on some other individual's inherent human rights requires, wait for i…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:24 PM
1

don’t apply here Hey we covered this: Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear lthat happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. Shall I continue? Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practi…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:16 PM
1

Hey it's almost like we've addressed this: The issue with the AAP risk:benefit ratio is they extensively about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in …
/r/MensRights23/09/22 05:13 PM
1

And you keep lashing out! You can't make this up. Now you want to attack the very act of me replying. Yup. That was easy to see through. It really is fascinating to watch you run around these fallacies and tactics.
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:51 PM
1

doesn’t have to be. Hey we covered this: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of subst…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:43 PM
1

Yeah pretty much a variation of a theme, so we covered this! Hey we just addressed this and the meta of this. So here it is again: Hey already addressed! Just like you’ve done with other things we’ve covered, it's incredible that you think you can ignore what's said and then claim the exact opposite. Matches your pattern like we've covered. You ignore the response and put out the same talking point as if it's not already been addressed. Here it is again: Sorry to say, but you haven't looked in t…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:43 PM
1

Back to your post hoc fallacy huh. And you continue to show how you Good thing we covered it. BTW you're now on a post hoc fallacy. You rely on saying that because it's done (the afterevent), therefore it must be medically ethical. Rather than actually making a fundamental argument based on the actual medical ethics. It's completely circular logic. By that logic any number of things that were done in the past were medically ethical simply because they were done. Lobotomies, forced sterilization,…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:43 PM
1

It would be more compelling if you sent a different source, And you keep trying to get out of the medical ethics. And we already covered this: You keep trying to get out of the medical ethics. You keep trying to narrow it. Do you notice that? Besides that this was just done. So you continue to show that you rely on ignoring the medical ethics. And we covered this too: “There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents fro…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:43 PM
1

And more examples of your stalking. You can't make this up. You realize the more you do this, the more you show how you rely on stalking and harassment. What else? Ah yes: Here it is: Yeah in this response you really seem to want to bog the other down with podiatrists doing heart surgery, how to do math, bike shop ???, cult, Dunning Kruger, etc. And you want the other to seem to spend time refuting each of these. And I’ll point out that it’s becoming Increasingly outlandish every time I don’t ta…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:24 PM
1

The Canadian pediatrics society is unique to Canada Hey we covered this: Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear lthat happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. Shall I continue? Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:14 PM
1

It’s good actually And you try to move the goalposts again! You can’t make your argument for the medical necessity, so you try to change it. Here are the medical ethics again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:14 PM
1

Hey we just addressed this and the meta of this. So here it is again: Hey already addressed! Just like you’ve done with other things we’ve covered, it's incredible that you think you can ignore what's said and then claim the exact opposite. Matches your pattern like we've covered. You ignore the response and put out the same talking point as if it's not already been addressed. Here it is again: Sorry to say, but you haven't looked in the mirror yet huh? I don't care, and that's why the decision …
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:14 PM
1

Hey you admit that it's not medically necessary. That's a good first step. Now you just need to apply the rest of the medical ethics: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decisi…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 04:14 PM
1

Medical necessity is not required for circumcision Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separate this from the discussion of medical necessity. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics. You don't have to go very far to find examples of terrible practices that occurred. Just give it a…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 03:09 AM
1

I don’t agree with that, Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. and I’m not Canadian, Hey we covered this: Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a partic…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 03:09 AM
1

It’s not just legal. It’s legal [and]. What is this? Legal and a bunch of stuff we already covered. Which means we can address each one! Which we’ve done. So first up! It’s legal So your argument boils down to "it's legal". Well we already covered this: That it's currently legal does not mean that it's medically ethical. Or medically necessary, which is the standard to intervene on someone else's body. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics. You don't have to go very far to fin…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 03:09 AM
1

You so so care Hey already addressed! Just like you’ve done with other things we’ve covered, it's incredible that you think you can ignore what's said and then claim the exact opposite. Matches your pattern like we've covered. You ignore the response and put out the same talking point as if it's not already been addressed. Here it is again: Sorry to say, but you haven't looked in the mirror yet huh? I don't care, and that's why the decision goes to the patient themself. Whatever they want to do …
/r/MensRights23/09/22 03:08 AM
1

Is this a veiled reference to phimosis? Why is it that you can't even say it? Don't worry we can cover it again: "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 09:18 PM
1

Make your case for the medical necessity. Because: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authorit…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 09:18 PM
1

They recognize that it’s legal Hey we covered this!So your argument boils down to "it's legal". Well we already covered this: That it's currently legal does not mean that it's medically ethical. Or medically necessary, which is the standard to intervene on someone else's body. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics. You don't have to go very far to find examples of terrible practices that occurred. Just give it a thought. There's a reason why the Hippocratic Oath is "First Do N…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 09:18 PM
1

Why do you care Sorry to say, but you haven't looked in the mirror yet huh? I don't care, and that's why the decision goes to the patient themself. Whatever they want to do to their own body is their own decision. Just like I don't care about tattoos. I don't care about breast implants. I don't care about nose jobs. I don't care about butt implants. Not a single care. People can do what every they want to their own body. Really. They can. Whatever they want. I don't care. So you need to look in …
/r/MensRights22/09/22 09:18 PM
1

you are indeed making a decision about whether or not the person will be circumcised. As an infant, which requires medical necessity. The decision if they want to be circumcised later in life is squarely their decision. They can decide whatever they want. And there's the obvious logic that a patient left intact can choose to be either intact or circumcised according to his values, but someone circumcised at birth can not choose to have his foreskin back. There is an important disparity in action…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 06:05 PM
1

I’ve said it’s my personal belief And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. you’re arguing you’re personal belief. Hey we’ve seen this before! And you’re back to trying to suggest that medical ethics is my own personal thing. It’s almost like we’ve addressed this! And you keep on going. Thank you for showing yet again how you ignore what’s written. Medical ethics exists whether you li…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 06:05 PM
1

Like I said, I'm up front with my username. And certain perturbed people stalk cough cough so I'm not giving them any other information. At least you're not attacking it at the moment.
/r/MensRights22/09/22 06:05 PM
1

You can think it's worth it and decide for your own body. Yup. The standard to intervene on someone else's body it medical necessity. Here are the medical ethics again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consen…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 06:05 PM
1

I will share with you a single medical institution in the world that recommends routine newborn circumcision And where do they say they recommend it? Your quote doesn't even say that. Not even close. I can't stop laughing. And it’s almost like we covered this: They literally do not recommend routine circumcision. Literally. Discussion of benefits is not a recommendation. Literally. AUA says it can be medically beneficial And you even know that they don't recommend it, so you have to try to sneak…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 03:20 AM
1

And you double down on trying to ?? attack somehow. Still doesn't make any sense. So once again this is what you're down to when given basic medical information and medical ethics. To come out with weird semi-attacks on the other person.
/r/MensRights22/09/22 03:20 AM
1

It’s not just my personal belief. So now you admit it's your personal belief, instead of the actual medical ethics. recommended Hey we already addressed this! In actuality not a single medical organization in the world recommends routine newborn circumcision. Bolded in an attempt to get you to read. Also addressed more in an adjacent comment where the quote you gave literally does not recommend it. Literally. I can't stop laughing again.
/r/MensRights22/09/22 03:20 AM
1

with your opinions! Hey we’ve seen this before! And you’re back to trying to suggest that medical ethics is my own personal thing. It’s almost like we’ve addressed this! And you keep on going. Thank you for showing yet again how you ignore what’s written. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separat…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 03:20 AM
1

What even is this? Now you lash out at the fact that you ignore what's written. You did that before too, but now you drop any pretence of making an actual argument. And instead proceed to attack the very act of me pointing out that you ignore what's written, continue to put the same talking points, so I cover it again! It's almost like we covered it: Hey we already covered this. I'll bold this part: So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't …
/r/MensRights21/09/22 09:32 PM
1

I'm up front with my user name. But you try to attack ?? it somehow. It doesn't even make any sense. But now you're down to trying to attack the other. You're not even original enough to come up with your own phrases, so you have to copy.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 09:32 PM
2

It’s not just my personal belief .... my personal beliefs What even is this? Do you even read what you write? You deny that it's your personal belief, then you literally write that it's your personal belief. It makes no sense. So we're back to: And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par …
/r/MensRights21/09/22 09:32 PM
1

Before you ignored them, ran away from them, and tried to move the goalposts. Pretty sure you didn't use the words don't matter until recently, because I call out all your attempts. But really this is just your latest method to ignore and run away from them, not all that different. And I think that takes us to: Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And yo…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:35 PM
1

The standard in the US Hey we covered this: Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear lthat happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. Shall I continue? Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the …
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:35 PM
1

As if that's any real difference. You can't make this up. So yes, you are literally ignoring and running away from them. And when you keep trying to desperately move the goalposts and change the terms, yeah I think you're actively running away. That's not just a disregard, you have to run away from the actual standards and try to create your own.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:35 PM
1

Why do you repeat yourself Hey we already covered this. I'll bold this part: So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep putting out talking points, I will address them. No matter how much you try to forbid responses. Boy that is so easy to see through. Medical ethics play no role in the decision Well this has been addressed: Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integra…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:35 PM
1

don’t exist as far as I’m concerned. Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. Doctors don’t have to follow them Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medic…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:05 PM
1

And you double down on "doesn't matter". Well this has been addressed: Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separate this from the discussion of medical necessity. There's an entire terrible history behind medical ethics. You don't have to go very far to find examples of terrible practices that occu…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:05 PM
1

Sounds like medical necessity and medical emergency are the same thing, Yup you still want to run away from the medical ethics and medical necessity and change it to something else. It was easy to see through the first time and still is. you’re not really explaining to me why Hey we already addressed this! And you double down on trying to draw the other away from the actual medical terms into your changed terms, so that you can debate that term instead. Easy to see through. Tactic confirmed! And…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:05 PM
1

just my children Which are literally other people. Literally. Covered more below. long term health And you keep trying to move the goalposts. The standard is medical necessity. Say it with me, medical necessity. then their autonomy as infants And you try to limit body autonomy, as if it doesn't exist to infants. Hey we just addressed this! You do realize other people have rights, you know. That includes body autonomy. I’ll add more: Let's discuss: Who has rights? Really, who has them? The answer…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:05 PM
1

The ethics you proposed don’t have to be followed in the US, Hey we covered this: Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear lthat happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. Shall I continue? Medical ethics is an integral part of med…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 06:05 PM
1

I can't stop laughing. Looks like I called it out perfectly! You have no choice but to ignore it and double down on exactly, and I mean exactly, what I called out My prior response addresses this perfectly. I don't even have to change the bolding. but not defining medical emergency. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Tactic confirmed! And it was already addressed well enough. And you continue to fall over yourself trying to change terms. It must be medically necessary. Not a medical emergency, or immediate medi…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 06:05 PM
1

Each message is uniquely written, but with prior addressal where you ignore. But I can try to pick off from where it was If a family has a history of restricted foreskins, Hey we already addressed this! Thank you for showing your tactic yet again, you ignore what’s written and then you put out the same talking point as if it’s not been addressed. It must be medically necessary to circumcise a newborn. There must be an actual issue that is actually present. So say it with me, medically necessary.…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 06:05 PM
1

Again, I don’t think I don’t agree Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. AUA. You don't even say which part, because you know it will be addressed. But I'll guess (see how I now have to guess at what yo…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 06:05 PM
1

That’s not moving the goalposts. You are trying to move the goalposts from the actual medical ethics that require medical necessity! your take on medical ethics. Hey we’ve seen this before! And you’re back to trying to suggest that medical ethics is my own personal thing. It’s almost like we’ve addressed this! And you keep on going. Thank you for showing yet again how you ignore what’s written. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It c…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 06:05 PM
1

I’m not moving the goalposts You are literally trying to move the goalposts away from the basic medical ethics that require medical necessity. Here they are again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. In…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:40 PM
1

Part 2 of 2
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:25 PM
1

Part 1 of 2 I think it’s ethical Make your case that it's medically necessary then! Because that is the medical ethics. Here it is again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute de…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:25 PM
1

Hey we already addressed this! Pay attention to the bolded part: I can't stop laughing. First the definition already does this. Second, we see your tactic again! I really can't stop laughing. And you continue to fall over yourself trying to change terms. It must be medically necessary. Not a medical emergency, or immediate medical necessity, it must be medically necessary. You can take that and run with your red herring all you want, I am staying on the topic of circumcision. Because this is you…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:24 PM
1

Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:24 PM
1

Circumcision reduces the chance And you continue to try to move the goalposts! It must be medically necessary. Say it with me, medically necessary. Here are the medical ethics again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cann…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:23 PM
1

I don’t agree that it must be a medical necessity. Hey we addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. Neither does the American Urology Association. Hey we addressed this! So they recognize that it's currently legal. T…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:53 PM
1

Not forbidding response What is this? You try to forbid response with the actual medical information. Yup you just keep trying to get out of how this was addressed! you keep resending it. Hey we already covered this. I'll bold this part: So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep putting out talking points, I will address them. No matter how much you try to forbid responses. Boy that is so easy to see …
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:48 PM
1

I don’t agree with that conclusion Hey we've addressed this! And you keep trying to run away from the medical ethics! As if you can simply say disagree (remember that) and that makes the medical ethics go away. And: And you still want to ignore the medical ethics! And elevate your own personal opinion to be on par with medical ethics. Boy that was easy to see through. I think a parent should It must be medically necessary. Say it with me, medically necessary. Here are the medical ethics again! T…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:24 PM
1

I’m not changing the term. You literally want to change the terms. Literally. I can't stop laughing. Here it is again: And you keep trying to change terms! And you continue to fall over yourself trying to change terms. It must be medically necessary. Not a medical emergency, or immediate medical necessity, it must be medically necessary. You can take that and run with your red herring all you want, I am staying on the topic of circumcision. Because this is your exact tactic, to draw the other aw…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:16 PM
1

Part 2 of 2 and I think the potential downsides of waiting are good reason And you keep trying to move the goalposts! It must be medically necessary. Say it with me, medically necessary. So here are the medical ethics again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequ…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:10 PM
1

Part 1 of 2 I don’t want to forbid response You really do. You keep attacking the very act of responding with medical information. In several different ways. And now it seems you don't want me to call it out either. we’ve been having this conversation for a week Hey we already covered this. I'll bold this part: So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep putting out talking points, I will address them. …
/r/MensRights21/09/22 04:09 PM
1

Hey we've seen this before: And you’re back to trying to suggest that medical ethics is my own personal thing. It’s almost like we’ve addressed this! And you keep on going. Thank you for showing yet again how you ignore what’s written. Medical ethics exists whether you like it or not. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath of First Do No Harm. We can't separate this from the disc…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:41 PM
1

And you keep trying to change terms! Boy that was easy to see. Really you do. You can't discuss the actual term of medically necessary, so like we've seen all over the place you try to change the terms. Here's the original response, bolding added because it was already called out Here it is again: And you continue to fall over yourself trying to change terms. It must be medically necessary. Not a medical emergency, medically necessary. You can take that and run with your red herring all you want…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:29 PM
1

And now you're just full on lashing out at the other person. Yup. You can't respond to what's said, so you attack the other person. Besides that I already addressed this. You want to forbid response, just so you can continue to put out the same talking points. Is this step one in that tactic again? Lashing out in an attempt to forbid response to subsequent replies?
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:29 PM
1

So you admit it? Well that was easy. Although more accurately I'd say that you are ignoring it and trying to run away from it. And that's what makes cutting through your attempts to easy when I keep my eye on the ball. A simple application of medical ethics that requires medical necessity. Say it with me, medical necessity.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:29 PM
1

Part 2 of 2 And we have more. Both the AAP and CDC have been criticized by Ethicist Brian Earp that “Conceptually, the CDC relies on an inappropriate construal of risk in its benefit vs. risk analysis, since it appears to interpret “risk” as referring (primarily or exclusively) to the “risk of surgical complications." ... [They] underestimated even the known risks of circumcision, by focusing on the comparatively rare, immediate surgical risks and complications that occur soon after the operatio…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:13 AM
1

Part 1 of 2 Why do you keep sending the same links over and over again? I can't stop laughing. I've called you out on your tactic who knows how many times, and you keep on it. Hey we already addressed this! You just keep confirming your tactic. You ignore what’s written, put out the same talking point, and try to forbid response. Is this your common tactic? So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep pu…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:13 AM
1

As for the definition of medically necessary: “According to a recent international consensus statement, ‘an intervention to alter a bodily state is medically necessary when (a) the bodily state poses a serious, time-sensitive threat to the person’s well-being, typically due to a functional impairment in an associated somatic process, and (b) the intervention, as performed without delay, is the least harmful feasible means of changing the bodily state to one that alleviates the threat. ‘Medically…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 03:12 AM
3

medical emergency? I can't stop laughing. It's almost like I addressed this. Here it is again: Hey we already addressed this! You just keep confirming your tactic. You ignore what’s written, put out the same talking point, and try to forbid response. Is this your common tactic? Here it is again: And you continue to fall over yourself trying to change terms. It must be medically necessary. Not a medical emergency, medically necessary. You can take that and run with your red herring all you want, …
/r/MensRights20/09/22 09:37 PM
3

I’m not sure how I’m not responding. And playing the fool tactic! You are literally not responding to what’s written. Literally. And then you keep putting out the same talking point as if it’s not been addressed. At least this time you didn’t try to forbid responding to them. then tried to address several of your points. All you try to do is run away from the medical ethics. Ignoring the medical ethics does not make them go away. It’s that simple. I’m using the same “talking point” because my po…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 08:08 PM
3

You’re inserting your opinion on other people’s genitals lol. You think everyone should be “intact”. I can’t stop laughing. I want the decision to go to the person themself, later in life. It’s that simple. If someone wants to circumcise themself, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely. 100%. Fully. Completely. Free to do whatever they want to their own body. I think that has been exceedingly clear from the start. So that makes this a strawman fallacy! Yup! You literally make something up…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 08:08 PM
2

Part 2 of 2 I’m not sure what you specifically want me to respond to. What even is this? Now you can't respond, so you ask me what to respond to. Seriously what is this? Yeah you keep lashing out trying to prevent response. And I see below that you continue on with the exact same talking point! So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep putting out talking points, I will address them. No matter how muc…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 04:42 PM
3

Part 1 of 2 I’m not sure what you specifically want me to respond to. What even is this? Now you can't respond, so you ask me what to respond to. Seriously what is this? Yeah you keep lashing out trying to prevent response. And I see below that you continue on with the exact same talking point! So tactic confirmed. You want to keep putting out your talking point, and forbid response. Don't worry it won't work, as long as you keep putting out talking points, I will address them. No matter how muc…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 04:41 PM
3

I want to maintain the ability to “insert my opinion” You do realize other people have rights, you know. That includes body autonomy. You can want to insert your opinion all you want. BTW I like how you try to spin this. I called out your opinion, and you don't seem to like it, so you try to spin it to you maintaining this or that. When in reality you inserting your opinion (key word opinion) on to other people's genitals when it's not medically necessary. This is quite literally a bad thing. Bu…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 04:09 PM
2

The American urology association, which I linked several days ago, says that the benefits outweigh the risks Hey it's almost like we covered this. Recall you didn't respond back then either to my actual addressal. Twice because I pretty much just covered it above too. So the AUA pretty much refers to the AAP which says that. The issue with the AAP risk:benefit ratio is they extensively about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of medical l…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 03:58 PM
2

Part 2 of 2 who both say it’s safer and. And you try to move the goalposts again! Boy that was easy to see through. And we can add more, not sure if this was covered: Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “This claim is based on retrospective comparisons on non-concurrent studies using dissimilar populations, dissimilar methods and criteria for identifying complications, and they fail to adequately control for the method used, the device, the skill of the practitioner, the…
/r/MensRights20/09/22 02:39 AM
2

Part 1 of 2 We’ve been having the same conversion for 4 days. I’ve had to give you the basic medical ethics for 4 days because you keep trying to ignore/get out of them. Plus I address all the other medical information whenever it pops up. And call out all your ignoring and fallacies. So not quite the exact same because you keep trying to come up with new ways to get out of the medical ethics. You don’t win by And you don’t win by ignoring what’s written. Boy that was easy. Every time I address …
/r/MensRights20/09/22 02:39 AM
3

Go back to a previous comment And now you can't make your argument, so you want to send the other to go search for your argument. Never mind that I have literally addressed all your comments. But you want to act as if they have not been addressed. So you can go find your argument, read my response to it, and actually reply to what's said. You've shown many times how you ignore what's written, so I'll remind you it's been addressed. perfectly fine for parents to consent on behalf of their childre…
/r/MensRights19/09/22 09:12 PM
3

Ah yes and now you try to elevate your views to be on par with medical ethics. That was easy to see through. Not to mention you're being vague again! You don't say anything, because you know it will be addressed. Instead you say "my views" as if that's an argument. And you try to prempt any reply. And now you double down on the red herring fallacy. Boy that was easy to see through. The red herring was addressed and you don't like that, so you try to draw the other person out into this and that s…
/r/MensRights19/09/22 08:43 PM
3

Back again? From https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/benign-tumors-causes-treatments benign tumors can be serious if they press on vital structures such as blood vessels or nerves. Therefore, sometimes they require treatment and other times they do not. There you go. Some of them are medically necessary to remove, some are not. That was easy. It's almost like it needs to be, wait for it, medically necessary. Ah BTW now we see your next tactic: Red herrings. You can't discuss circumcision, so you…
/r/MensRights19/09/22 07:55 PM
3

Most doctors in the US do abide. Yup, you don't like the medical ethics so much, that you now have to ignore them completely. Well here they are again: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a…
/r/MensRights18/09/22 08:53 PM
3

ircumcision has proven to be beneficial in repeated experiments. See my reply here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xfczx3/does_any_one_have_any_sources_that_show_the_the/iop0n6m/
/r/MensRights18/09/22 08:35 PM
3

Part 2 of 2. Finally, the AAP has attracted this critique by 39 notable European doctors (most of whom sit on their respective national boards): "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." And to cap this off. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of t…
/r/MensRights18/09/22 05:35 PM
3

Part 1 of 2. Most doctors don’t abide Didn't we cover this? Failure to follow medical ethics is exactly that, a failure. It does not mean that medical ethics don't exist. It's that simple. And pretty sure we covered this: BTW you're now on a post hoc fallacy. You rely on saying that because it's done (the afterevent), therefore it must be medically ethical. Rather than actually making a fundamental argument based on the actual medical ethics. It's completely circular logic. By that logic any num…
/r/MensRights18/09/22 05:35 PM
3

You are literally trying to get away from the medical ethics that requires medical necessity, and go toward preventative. It requires medical necessity. just like parents make most decisions on behalf of their infants. When it comes to medicine and surgery, medical ethics are at play. Which requires medical necessity. Say it with me, medical necessity. I think people who think like you should not have their kids circumcised. The decision goes to the person themself. It's that simple. If someone …
/r/MensRights18/09/22 04:50 PM
3

The standard is not preventative. The standard is medical necessity. It's that simple. Thought you could try to move the goalpost, but it's so simple to see through. Any number of procedures or surgeries could have benefits. It does not matter. It needs to be necessary to override someone’s body autonomy. If the patient wants to take preventative measures on their own body, they are free do to so. Just like mastectomies to prevent breast cancer. Woman can decide for themself. No one else has the…
/r/MensRights18/09/22 03:41 AM
4

The AUA (American Urology Association) “believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits Haven't we gone over this? From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with th…
/r/MensRights17/09/22 09:27 PM
3

“There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because nontherapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First,…
/r/MensRights17/09/22 05:17 PM
5

Same as the other chain: A failure to follow medical ethics is exactly that, a failure. That does not mean that medical ethics don't exist. We have a pretty bad history recognizing people's rights. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor is it an argument to continue doing so.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 01:55 AM
3

A failure to follow medical ethics is exactly that, a failure. That does not mean that medical ethics don't exist. Or to answer it another way, because it's culturally ingrained.
/r/MensRights17/09/22 01:54 AM
3

Is that in regard to the medical ethics? Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. If it was in regards to body autonomy and human rights, well that exists in the US. You can b…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 08:26 PM
3

Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 08:25 PM
3

Have you seen the medical ethics yet? It must be medically necessary. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interest…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 08:03 PM
5

I’m not circumcising other people lol. If you as a parent decide to circumcise your newborn, you are circumcising someone else. Or are you trying to be pedantic and say that you are not personally doing it? Same thing, you are the one deciding. If I had to consent to get circumcised, I wouldn’t be circumcised. Cool. That is your choice. I’m glad Cool. You can be glad. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. I don’t care that my parents consented Cool. That is not an arg…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 08:02 PM
3

I don’t want the choice. Choices in life exist whether you like them or not. I want to not have a foreskin. Cool, then you can choose to not have one for yourself. doing it before I could consent. Well I'm just going to keep bringing up the medical ethics. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. I don’t think that right should be taken away from parents. What is this? Now you trying to portray your preference as your right? And then conflate that with parents right…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 07:52 PM
4

My argument is that I wouldn’t do it as an adult, which is why I’m glad You can not do it as an adult, that is your choice. And you can make that choice. And you can be glad. Again, not an argument to circumcise someone else. There's the obvious logic that a patient left intact can choose to be either intact or circumcised according to his values, but someone circumcised at birth can not choose to have his foreskin back. There is an important disparity in actions he can choose as an adult. Becau…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 07:41 PM
5

And I'm putting your "I’m happy" comments in context. You can be happy. You can be glad. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else. They can do what they want to their own body. It should be an individual/family decision This is an oxymoron. Individual decision means not someone else's decision. Yes it should be the individual patient's decision. The medical ethics are clear. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself later in life.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 07:31 PM
4

It's not perfect for what OP wants, but the author is commenting on the medical ethics and the AAP's flawed risk:benefit ratio. The much simpler way to look at it is the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. And circumcision is not medically necessary. Earp goes much deeper than than, but that's the gist of it.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 06:05 PM
9

You can be happy. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. The decision is yours to make. It's not difficult to get a circumcision as an adult. And effectively it's the same amount of pain whether done as a baby or an adult. Except adults can get general anesthesia, while newborns can only get local anesthesia. And you can decide on the status quo for yourself. Other people are free to make their own decisions for their own body. Without medical necessity the decision go…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 06:01 PM
7

You can still make that decision. It's yours to make. Effectively it's the same amount of pain whether done as a baby or an adult. Except adults can get general anesthesia, while newborns can only get local anesthesia. But again it doesn't have to be done at all. It's up to the patient to decide for themselves. You can be happy. That's not an argument to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 05:59 PM
7

The first step is to look at the stats of the benefits. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not comm…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 05:57 PM
10

The first issue is body autonomy. Unless there is medical need, people have autonomy over their own body and medical decisions always go to the patient themselves (later in life) to decide for their own body. Second, The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of dec…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 05:53 PM
7

Cool. You can decide for your own body. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. They can decide for their own body.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 05:53 PM
1

Yes, corrected.
/r/MensRights10/09/22 04:21 PM
10

In the same vein you shouldn't remove anything else because it MIGHT get infected And when things are infected, removing body parts is usually regarded as the absolute last resort.
/r/MensRights10/09/22 02:28 AM
1

70% more chance of getting aids in unprotected sex. It's typically given as 50-60%. Reduction of 60% is the relative rate which sounds impressive. But the absolute rate sounds very different: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless. And …
/r/MensRights07/09/22 03:16 AM
5

I know I cannot change your opinion You can change my mind. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. That is the medical ethics. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in t…
/r/MensRights05/09/22 03:32 AM
9

I actually am glad I was circumcised. You can be glad. That is not an argument to circumcise someone else. They can decide for themself based on their own thoughts about it. due to the cleanliness benefits You can decide that for yourself, but I'll say hygiene is easy with running water. painful as an adult Effectively it's the same amount of pain whether done as a baby or an adult. Except adults can get general anesthesia, while newborns can only get local anesthesia. But again it doesn't have …
/r/MensRights05/09/22 03:03 AM
3

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550 I'm going to reply to the medical information. I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 …
/r/MensRights05/09/22 02:55 AM
17

People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. It must be medically necessary for that individual patient. An actual diagnosable issue with all other options exhausted. Keep in mind that removing body parts is usually regarded as the absolute last option, after all other options are exhausted.
/r/MensRights04/09/22 04:46 PM
9

That depends on what kind of person he is. But as a starter give him this info and presentations: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20s Long but informative. This presentation from Ethicist Brian Earp excellently cov…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/22 08:27 PM
1

advantage, it reduces the risk of urinary infection, STIs, and penis cancer. I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" HIV: “The number needed …
/r/AntiFeminists30/08/22 04:52 PM
2

I believe Circumcision should be legal for certain religious purposes, People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights29/08/22 10:16 PM
3

Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this review collapsed across study quality. The conc…
/r/MensRights25/07/22 05:56 PM
1

whom we all know have zero information or power That does not mean we have free reign to do to children as we please. Honestly this is still a mess when you say "parents(family decision) do it to newborns". I can't make much sense of it if you also agree that the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. So I don't know what you're acknowledging or you're what you're saying. At this point I think elaborating on the full medical ethics is the only way to try to add clarity. The standa…
/r/MensRights16/07/22 05:43 PM
1

So, that means it not a family decision like you said, or "parents choosing it to be done at birth." That fundamentally goes against the person making their own informed decision.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 03:39 PM
2

it's a family decision either for religious/cultural reasons. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the person themself. It's their genitals, it's no one else's business.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 03:48 AM
3

you don’t understand my view I get your view. And I'm saying that means you can modify your own body. You can not modify other people's bodies. Your religion is your religion. And other people are free to choose their own religion. You really don't get free reign over other people because of your religion. God See above. I thru in the sex change just for shits And now that it's used against you, all of a sudden it's just for shits. Do you even hear yourself? and but it’s still body mutilation Bu…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 08:45 PM
3

I don’t have to speak on whether it’s medically ethical When it comes to surgery on someone else's body, yes the medical ethics apply whether you like it or not. So that means it must be medically necessary. To use your own example against you: if the parents think "but celebrate when to put crudely peopke be chopping off their dicks and tits", which I think is your way of discussing sex changes, is important to them as the parents for their religion/tradition/spirit/ethic/etc/etc/etc, do you th…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 08:13 PM
2

Common mistake. The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the corpora cavernosa and the female genitalia, preventing corporal trauma during episodes of high external axial loading and vaginal pain in erotic positio…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 07:12 PM
3

Christian one You keep appealing to your religion. And I say cool. You can apply that to your own body. Other people can apply their own religion to their own body. And yes I notice that you can't discuss the medicine or the medical ethics. Remember how this started? Why does it seem people care more about circumcision which I don’t argue is genital mutilation , but celebrate when to put crudely peopke be chopping off their dicks and tits And I gave you the medical ethics that addressed this. Pe…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 07:11 PM
4

Whose god? Yours? Cool. You are free to circumcise yourself according to your own god. You are not free to circumcise other people because of your god. Other people are free to choose their own god. And if they want to circumcise themself, or do any other body modification for their god, they are free to do so on their own body. And same thing, they are not free to modify other people's bodies for their own god. children As before, one person's religious rights ends at another persons body. Peri…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 05:57 PM
4

Ancient history can be fascinating. It is not an argument to continue, that's just an appeal to antiquity fallacy. And it’s not “other people” it’s parents doing it to their children That child is literally a different person. Literally. If that child wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen tradition/religion/honor/whatever they are free to do so. If it’s not medically ethical then why is it allowed Post hoc fallacy. You are looking at the output that it's currently done, and saying be…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 05:33 PM
7

Again it’s a religious tradition Whose religious tradition? Yours? Cool. You are free to practice your religion on your own body. And other people are free to practice their own chosen religion on their own body. If you want to circumcise yourself, you are free to do so. 100% free to circumcise yourself. Completely and absolutely free to circumcise yourself. But you are not free to circumcise other people for your religion. It’s the parents prerogative how their child is raised Full medical ethi…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 05:16 PM
7

Judaism and think Islam. People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. That tradition was past to gentiles To attract more converts, Christianity did not require circumcision. How it became common in the US was from medicalization of it in the 1850s. Note how it's not common in Europe, South Americ…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:54 PM
6

It must be medically necessary in order to intervene on someone else's body. If it's not medically necessary, then the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. If they want to circumcise themself for whatever reason, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:40 PM
6

"Male circumcision is the oldest known human surgical procedure This is an appeal to antiquity fallacy. human immunodeficiency virus among males by 51%–60% Reduction of 60% is the relative rate which sounds impressive. But the absolute rate sounds very different: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcisi…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:29 PM
2

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:26 PM
5

People can decide to do whatever they want to their own body. But circumcision is done at birth.
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:24 PM
15

The WHO categorizes FGM into 4 types. You can go further than this and look at the WHO's definition of FGM. The World Health Organization’s definition of Female Genital Mutilation is "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." Remove gender and we get: ‘all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reaso…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:17 PM
6

The medical ethics have addressed this. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substi…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 04:15 PM
17

Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis (Full study.) and since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications. And The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervate…
/r/MensRights15/07/22 03:03 AM
2

The claim of this subreddit is “circumcision is bad.” This is the claim. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best inter…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:55 PM
2

It is indeed a myth, check his source. I addressed his source here.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:51 PM
1

Article on Penile Sensitivity Studies That article references two surveys done in Africa. On one hand we have basic human anatomy, done by objective measurements that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) On the other hand we have two surveys presented in the psychologytoday article. Here is the Kenya survey. And we have the Uganda survey. The following applies to both surveys: These surveys were done only two years after circumcision. Both tacked on to the end of a…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:49 PM
1

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/ Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this revie…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:44 PM
9

Male Circumcision Had Major Benefits From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily b…
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:52 PM
2

And you don't like the medical ethics, so you keep trying to attack them by saying "Canada". Medical ethics is not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 01:20 AM
3

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." It's easy to clean, it's not a big deal. What are the upsides to being uncut? The foreskin is the most sensitive…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 07:29 PM
2

prone to infections "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 04:54 PM
5

small, health benefit to circumcision. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substit…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 04:18 PM
14

And now I'm going to say you're playing the fool. To get away from the actual topic of circumcision and the medical ethics.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 04:21 AM
16

You start with lashing out at the other person. X2. Then you attempt to lash out at Canada. Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics. It must be medically necessary in order to…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 02:16 AM
30

I do support the right for parents to do it. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of s…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 02:13 AM
5

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights05/07/22 02:06 AM
15

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with an antifungal cream if…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 02:01 AM
25

there's all kinds of surgeries performed on children The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the author…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 02:00 AM
1

The first issue is body autonomy. Unless there is medical need, people have autonomy over their own body and medical decisions always go to the patient themselves (later in life) to decide for their own body. Second, The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of dec…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 01:59 AM
2

and I say that without any sarcasm or anything else. Oh yes that’s why you are clearly looking for a poison the well fallacy. And call people brain damaged. Yup. I don't have your same level of interest Says the guy who posted endlessly about WHO and trying to misportray, but when countered all of a sudden has no interest. Yup. Forgive my snide remarks Sorry to say you showed your colors. When countered, you attack the other. Well actually you did that in your very first response, remember the “…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 02:46 AM
3

Your username And now you lash out. Yup. X2. You dismiss the very benefits I gave the stats to the medical items. I literally don’t dismiss them, I literally give the stats which inherently acknowledges they exist. You don't seem to like this so you have to try to misportray this. And then I gave the framework of medical ethics to analyze the stats. Yes the standard is medical necessity. You line up the stats, the issues, and the other treatment options to see if it constitutes medical necessity…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 08:49 PM
2

You have to make your case for the medical necessity of circumcision. https://healthychildren.org/Engl First thing first. What do you want to reference in your link? What is your argument from this link? It's not on anyone else to wade through your dumped links, try to figure out what parts you like, make your argument for you, and then address it. It’s funny though, your link says “these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision of all boys.” Yup. I think you were tryin…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 08:00 PM
3

Neonatal male circumcision is a relative simple, quick and safe ... I'm going to copy paste from my other response because it's the same thing you're trying to pull: Again, saying that it is simple is not a recommendation for newborn circumcision. Same with quick. That does not mean it's recommended. Same with safe. That does not mean it's recommended. Any number of surgeries can be simple/quick/safe at birth, that does not mean it is recommended. You seem to want to take any discussion about ef…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 06:56 PM
4

only new prevention method to have shown consistent efficacy through randomized controlled trials." Other way around, are you reading it? Saying that it has efficacy is not a recommendation for newborn circumcision. It's that simple. Seriously. Not a recommendation for newborn circumcision. "To summerize, neonatal male circumcision is a relatively simple, quick, and safe procedure when performed in a clinical setting under aseptic conditions by trained professionals". Again, saying that it is si…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 06:35 PM
3

Ouch. WHO/UNAIDS: Addressed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vmxo4l/circumcised_men_after_hearing_women_lost_bodily/ie7pm2u/ Ouch. Ah I'll just give the whole thing in case anyone else sees this. This does not appear to be a paper by the WHO/CDC. Look at the authors: “Consultant Dermatologist, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. E-mail: [email protected]”. And “Department of Skin and VD, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Guj…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 06:15 PM
4

If you can't tell, ear piercings should also not be done. the WHO and the CDC recommend male circumcision. This does not appear to be a paper by the WHO/CDC. Look at the authors: “Consultant Dermatologist, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. E-mail: [email protected]”. And “Department of Skin and VD, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat, India Let’s see what the WHO and CDC actually say: What the WHO says is: “In counselling parents who …
/r/MensRights29/06/22 05:57 PM
3

Oh, do they recommend routine newborn circumcision? Let alone say that it's medically necessary? Spoiler, they do not recommend newborn circumcision. In fact not a single medical organization in the world recommends newborn circumcision. And now you can't counter the medical ethics, so you try to portray it as my own personal thing. That was easy to see through. The standard remains medical necessity. That is basic medical ethics. What you're basically down to is "it's legal". And notice which w…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 05:44 PM
4

Vaccines debates have proven no one has bodily autonomy. This has been sorted out a long time ago with medical ethics. It must be medically necessary in order to intervene on someone else's body. (And only when they are incapable of making their own decisions.) The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child …
/r/MensRights29/06/22 05:01 PM
4

prone to yeast infections and bacterial accumulation Let's just go over all the stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncirc…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:53 PM
3

People pierce parts of their body, get tattoos, And people are free to decide that for their own body. They are not free to pierce/tattoo other people, eg newborns. remove their gallbladders and appendices… The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is perfo…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:51 PM
1

Well were you prescribed steroid cream? But anyway, the rare case of medical necessity is not an argument for routine circumcision of all newborns.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:32 PM
1

But considering the benefits From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treate…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:30 AM
13

The first issue is body autonomy. Unless there is medical need, people have autonomy over their own body and medical decisions always go to the patient themselves (later in life) to decide for their own body. Second, The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of dec…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 02:48 AM
8

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with an antifungal cream if…
/r/MensRights26/06/22 03:28 PM
4

The first issue is body autonomy. Unless there is medical need, people have autonomy over their own body and medical decisions always go to the patient themselves (later in life) to decide for their own body. Second, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of dec…
/r/MensRights26/06/22 03:25 PM
3

And now you can't say anything, so you go for flippant ignoral. Yup. That's what you're down to.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 09:19 PM
4

Why would I argue any of those things? Dude you denied human rights just a few comments ago, why do you think we’re discussing human rights? What even is this? are products of the assumptions And you’re back to it! You can’t make this up. Already addressed, let’s bring it up again! And the human rights of course, which body autonomy is part of: They are commonly understood as inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being"[4…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:52 PM
5

And you can't counter the medical ethics, bodily integrity, or human rights, so you try to strawman fallacy the word tyranny just so you have something to blow down. I didn't use that word, but you create it out of thin air just to have something to blow down. Also notice how you try to turn the tables. You can't make your argument for the medical necessity of circumcision, or to override bodily integrity and human rights, so you try to turn the tables that I have to ??? do better than human rig…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:14 PM
4

Dude, there is far more to the concept of body integrity than consent. You notice I don't use that word, I use body autonomy. And I even gave you the definition. Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 07:58 PM
2

you can ASSUME that someone has the right to chose for themselves. Ok let’s go over human rights. It’s incredible that we have to do this, but apparently we have to. Body autonomy is one part of human rights. Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 07:44 PM
3

I am literally arguing that individuals can decide for themselves. If they want to circumcise themself, they are absolutely free to do so. 100%, absolutely free to do so. But you are the one that is literally arguing to impose your views on to other peoples bodies. To remove part of their genitals. And note they can never choose to have that part of their genitals back. You take that choice away from them. you’d rather just sling vapid epithets around Dude this is literally what you are doing. T…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 03:29 PM
3

What truth? You're getting even vaguer now. That has a religious connation, so I'll say whose religion? Yours? Cool. You can practice your religion/"truth" on your body. And other people can choose their own religion/"truth" and practice that on their own body. And of course you then rely on attacking others. So ad-hominem fallacy. What did you say before? You said: “Of course a narcissist would think his way is the best way.” Do you realize the irony of that? You are literally arguing that your…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 02:36 PM
2

Your first two paragraphs were not applied to circumcision. In a religions context for circumcision One religious group is not the entire society. I think that's about it. And after that you quickly, like extraordinarily quickly, went away from circumcision again. Back to so broad it's meaningless. the right to be included in the group Oh you mentioned it again just barely. If someone wants to participate in that group, they are free to circumcise themself. That's it. Also you don't say anything…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 02:24 AM
8

You appealed to your god. Several times and in several ways. That's all you have. And that is simple, you can do whatever your own god wants on your own body. And you still rely on ignoring, you still don't respond to stoning other people to death, etc. They make the same appeal to their own god. Oh and you ignored that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, we can add that to your list of ignoring. Religious freedom is the right to practice your religion on yourself and your own …
/r/MensRights12/06/22 09:14 PM
6

You rely on ignoring everything. Do you support all those things that I listed? The list is near endless. We don't allow that because that impacts other people. You can practice your religion on yourself, that's what freedom of religion is. God demands And we're back to whose god? Yours? Cool. You can do whatever your god commands on your own body. And other people can choose their own god and do whatever they want on their own body. Since foreskin removal is not a big deal The foreskin is the m…
/r/MensRights12/06/22 08:55 PM
8

What even is this? Do you want to allow people to have unfettered access to other people's body? Do you support stoning people to death because it's the other persons religion? Do you support child marriage? Polygamy? Any number of things where you force others to do what you want? It's simple. One person's religious rights end at another person's body. You can do whatever you want to your body. You are not free to other people's body.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 08:48 PM
6

Did you even read my response? One person's religious rights end at another person's body. You are not free to stone other people even if your religion demands it. You are not free to any number of things to other people. So you are free to practice your jewish faith on your own body. And other people are free to choose their own religion and practice that on their own body. That's how freedom of religion works.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 08:40 PM
8

Again, whose faith? Yours? You can circumcise yourself all you want. You are not free to circumcise other people. Just like you are not free to stone others, or any number of things you're not allowed to do to other people. One person's religious rights ends at another person's body.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 08:17 PM
7

Apply this to circumcision please and thank you. You're being so broad it losses all meaning.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 07:52 PM
11

Whose faith? Yours? Cool. You are free to circumcise yourself. And others are free to choose their own religion and circumcise themself if they want to. That's how freedom of religion works.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 07:51 PM
11

People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. That's what freedom of religion is.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 07:25 PM
9

Are you seriously suggesting we need to sacrifice foreskin for the greater good? This is not something that is needed for societal functioning like you suggest.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 07:15 PM
2

All I'm going to say is that variation in HPV rates does not mean the vaccine effectiveness is 0%.
/r/MensRights06/06/22 06:15 PM
2

What even is this? Do you think I support circumcision? I do not. The stats are terrible and do not present medical necessity. Yes that HIV data is the best efficacy based on Africa, and the worst efficacy is that circumcision has no effect based on two recent studies in the west. You are the one that seems to suggest HPV vaccine is not a good prevention for HPV (and that we should use ???) and I'm saying that the HPV vaccine is by far the better option than circumcision. Really, what is this? *…
/r/MensRights06/06/22 01:00 AM
1

understanding is that transmission can occur during any significant skin to skin contact. What? I'm illustrating the difference in how circumcision and vaccines work. They are dramatically different methods. Or are you trying to be picky on how circumcision works? Remember we are talking about circumcision. HPV via sex which is when circumcision is relevant is not even relevant to newborns or children. the study I posted suggests that it could be 0%. What? You're going to have to quote the secti…
/r/MensRights05/06/22 11:28 PM
2

What? The HPV vaccine is far more effective than circumcision. Keep in mind how they work too. Circumcision is only effective in reducing transmission. Vaccines give immunity to _% of recipients. And HPV is not even relevant to newborn, so the decision goes to the informed adult. They can decide for themself on both circumcision and HPV vaccine. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a conten…
/r/MensRights05/06/22 10:00 PM
2

Your point? If we want a public health policy today, the choice is obviously HPV vaccine and not circumcision.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 08:54 PM
3

Sounds like the Mayo Clinic article. I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" HIV: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infec…
/r/MensRights05/06/22 07:23 PM
1

Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this review collapsed across study quality. The conc…
/r/MensRights19/05/22 01:22 AM
2

“The effect of male circumcision on sexuality” “CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.” “RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased …
/r/MensRights17/05/22 08:26 PM
25

The first issue is body autonomy. Without medical need the decision always goes to the patient themselves, later in life. They decide for their own body. The second issue is the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights17/05/22 02:28 PM
3

Well the part with Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like: “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favourite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get to hear it with the Violas. The violas section has been removed, but it's still your favourite piece of music. How do you know you wouldn't like it better with the Violas? Why wouldn't you want to hear it with the Violas? Don’t you think it should be your ch…
/r/MensRights17/05/22 02:14 PM
5

has actually bothered to explain exactly what it is that I’m missing. So do you want to tell me what I’m missing? The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. Make sure you watch to 42 minute mark (starting from 28 minutes).
/r/MensRights16/05/22 04:59 PM
5

circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%, Reduction of 60% is the relative rate which sounds impressive. But the absolute rate sounds very different: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardle…
/r/MensRights16/05/22 04:37 PM
2

And you have no response to my addressal of the study, or that people can decide for themself, so you attack the other. Ad-hominem fallacy.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 02:51 PM
3

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless. And we can look at the real world results: “The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percent…
/r/MensRights11/05/22 05:18 PM
11

has a noticeable difference in orgasm. There is more to sexual pleasure than orgasm. Some info for you:The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 04:37 AM
7

Dude you've been lashing out since the start. I'm just pointing it out now. Since the start you've been trying to create and pin something on the other just to have something to attack. And you continue with "Whining". I'm discussing the medicine and the medical ethics. You have to try to portray that as "whining". Does circumcision render you unable to cum or feel pleasure? First, we already addressed effect: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this pr…
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:50 AM
6

And you try to triple down on lashing out. Who said it offended me? You're trying to pin that on the other, just like the previous attempts to pin all those other things on the other. Just to have something to attack. I'm just calling it out. I'm discussing the medicine and science, and your response to that is to lash out. Proven by your third attempt to lash out. I also wanted to know what the fuck this has to do with MensRights? Body autonomy for the person. It's part of fundamental human rig…
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:34 AM
7

That's the second time you lashed out, you doubled down. I'm referencing the medical literature and you can't counter it, so instead you lash out. X2. X3. X4. Yup. So everything I posted remains unchallenged.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:06 AM
8

I have never had any problems in bed Here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like. “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favorite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get to hear it with the Violas. The violas section has been removed, but it's still your favorite piece of music. How do you know you wouldn't like it better with the Violas? Why wouldn't you want to hear it with the Violas? Don’t you thi…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 11:55 PM
7

You can't get sensation from the parts that were removed. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 11:40 PM
8

a little skin snipped off The foreskin is huge. Research Assistant Professor Ryan McAllister discuses that the foreskin is 12-15 square inches, the size of a 3”x5” index card, is the most erogenous part of the male, motility during sex, specialized anatomy, and sensitivity. And see Dr. Guests presentation below where he marks the size. And: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 11:39 PM
3

I went over all the ones in the west. As for the one in Africa, yeah I'm going to skip over those for all the reasons I gave and which you seem to have ignored: Circumcision is popular there for religion or quasi-religion, tradition, coming of age, culture, or for HIV reasons. This is not good information, and certainly not for the West. And I addressed the concept as a whole anyway, which you ignore: 1) Women usually prefer what they are used to. Go over to Europe and women will prefer intact m…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 09:52 PM
3

That's because male circumcision does carry health benefits for boys. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." Th…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:49 PM
3

I like my circumcision Cool. You can like it. That's not an argument to circumcise other people, eg newborns. They can decide for themselves.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:48 PM
3

So that references Morris’s study. When you read through that study you realize how terrible it is. There are plenty of counter studies right in the paper, the data that prefers circumcised is horribly old, and he relies heavily on Africa. The US: They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’s biased. To look at it more, this is a study from 1988. Keep in mind the respondents would be born well before that, likely born in the 1958-1968 range at the youngest. …
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:47 PM
10

Sorry to hear that you will deny science. Yup. That's what you're doing. Sorry to be blunt about it but it seems I have to shake you out of your incorrectness. You are the one denying science. You are the one denying facts. I'm the one citing the actual science. Which shows that circumcision is not medically necessary, not by a long shot.
/r/MensRights09/05/22 10:02 PM
12

Dude you need to make your argument. You're just spam dumping links and demanding the other read them for you. It's not on anyone to wade through it for you, guess and find at what you want to say, and then construct your argument for you. I used science, Other way around. I'm the one referencing the actual science. I'm the one giving the stats to the items. You're the one denying the science. The health benefits out weigh the issues The standard to intervene on someone else's body is not benefi…
/r/MensRights09/05/22 09:58 PM
13

First if you want to make you argument, you have to actually do it. Second, dude these are the stats to the items you listed (well you didn't actually list them). These are the stats. This is what the medical literature literally is. It seems you think that the stats are so bad that they go against your links. When in reality these are the stats to the items in your links. Again, this is literally the medical literature and science.
/r/MensRights09/05/22 09:40 PM
14

Let's get all the stats out. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treate…
/r/MensRights09/05/22 09:35 PM
1

Now you try to attack the medical information because it goes against you. Yup. Its impacting someones life because "their orgasm is less intense" Why do you say this like it's a gotcha, or works in your favor? That means it literally has an impact. Which you deny happens. So it literally goes against you. To address it further, there is way more to sexual pleasure than orgasm. There is plenty of pre-orgasmic sensation that is lost due to circumcision. But hey if you don't care, then you can app…
/r/AntiFeminists06/05/22 01:30 AM
1

I just edited it, so in case you didn't see: It doesn't need to be a big issue (or your mountain/mole hill as you say now). That is not the direction medical ethics goes. It needs to be medically necessary in order to intervene on someone else's body. And if it's not medically necessary, then the individual can decide for themself if they think it's a big deal or not, and they can modify their body however they want. They really can. That's how individual freedom of choice works. It's not up to …
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 11:39 PM
1

And you're back to big issue! Ignoring 1) The medical ethics. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet t…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 11:31 PM
2

I literally never thought there was a medical reason for it. Finally! You take one step outside of your hyper fixation on one number. But you go right into the next one. The question is not if you ever thought it was done for a medical reason. The question is how many men think it was done for a medical reason. I literally dont think about. And you literally show the next issue. Yup. You show exactly the issue of how many men don't even think about it. In your attempt to ignore reason why the nu…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 11:16 PM
2

One in eight is a huge number. And you continue to ignore everything that goes into that number and everything outside that number too. You rely entirely on ignoring. It's quite something. What else are you ignoring? Ah yes: It's easy to be satisfied when you incorrectly thought it was done for a medical reason. Isn't it? We already covered it: Men who think there were medical reasons for their circumcision, or aren’t informed about the anatomy are more likely to be satisfied: “we find that grea…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 10:22 PM
3

Dude you are still ignoring everything that goes into that. How many men even take the time to think about it when it's so socially reinforced? Not many have the mental fortitude to question it. Considering that, that stat is actually quite significant. One in eight men? To not only question it, but to also see past the social pressure and vague medical notions? That's actually a huge number. One in eight men. Think about that the next time you're out. I'm not kidding when I say that you rely on…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 07:07 PM
3

And you continue to ignore! Allow me bold: Before you say that's low, consider that it takes an incredible amount of effort to even rethink such an ingrained and socially enforced procedure. And then to actively decide they didn't want it, rather than simply accepting it. Plus men who think there were medical reasons for their circumcision, or aren’t informed about the anatomy are more likely to be satisfied: “we find that greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile a…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 05:55 PM
3

people keep saying "sensitivity" Yeah see how you have to run away from "just skin". This is not good for you. The foreskin is literally highly erogenous tissue, which is not replicated by other structures. Sorry to say, but you'd know this if you looked at any of the resources given. im saying who the fuck cares First, the many responses from multiple people shows you people care. It seems like this has gone completely over your head. Second, you are still ignoring the medical ethics. You can n…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 05:49 PM
3

Why would i watch that? See, you run away. Your question is literally answered. And you literally shut it out. And you literally run away from it. It really is just some skin And you keep putting out the same talking point as if it hasn't been addressed! You can't make this up. So literally not just skin. Here it is again: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervate…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 05:04 PM
6

No you keep trying to change your argument. I was polite about it before, but now I'll point out that you keep running away. First it was "just skin", remember? When I gave info on the foreskin you had to run away from that. Then it was "why would you care", that was addressed with the Violas analogy and you had to run away from that. I also brought in the medical ethics that "caring" is not the standard and that medical necessity is, you also run away from that. Then you said "unnecessary", tha…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 04:44 PM
5

Now you keep trying to change your words as I keep addressing it? First it was "just skin". When that was addressed, you changed it to "doesn't matter". When that was addressed, you now change it to "unnecessary". *Oh and you try to sneak in "just skin" again when it was already addressed. Do you see how you keep trying to change the goalposts? This is why no one has to prove all these things that you keep demanding. Because when one is addressed, all you do is change it to the next item. And th…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 03:45 PM
9

So first, literally not "just skin" as you kept saying. Now that you were countered on that, you have to move the goal posts. Second, literally does matter. Just because it was removed at birth doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, that logic doesn't flow at all. Third, here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like. “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favorite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get t…
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 03:17 PM
11

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/AntiFeminists05/05/22 03:03 PM
8

circumcised for millennia without any detrimental effects. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min) Just because someone can have sex and ejaculate does not mean there's no detrimental effect.
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:57 PM
9

crazy nonsense about neonatal circumcision. Medical ethics is incredibly rational. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their …
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:56 PM
4

or put your child through it The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decisi…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:57 AM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:55 AM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:54 AM
1

Dr. Guest discusses through examples of the ape family how the trend of heavily innervated foreskin is a sign of evolutionary advancement from the lower primate species. It contributes to pair bonding, evolutionarily important for the male to stay and care for offspring.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:50 AM
7

The Sorrells study “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis” is an objective measurement using a Semmes Weinstein monofilament. This is how they work. This is literally a measurement. And is literally objective. It is literally not self reported and literally not subjective. How you even came up with that is beyond me. Yeah given your whole response I think you're just trying to throw out those words, just in an attempt to throw shade at it. It is literally an objective measurement. Th…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 09:48 PM
3

people who wanna get circumcised have the right to do so Individuals are free to circumcise themself. They are not free to circumcise other people, eg newborns. I think the context is clear that OP was talking about routine circumcision of newborns, you are trying to change that. And remember you started out with saying it's not harmful, which was countered. Then you tried to ignore the tissue itself twice. The problem is that people think others are forced to get circumcised The vast, overwhelm…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:44 PM
4

The most sensitive part is literally removed during circumcision. Entire portions are removed during circumcision. Take a look at the diagram (Full study.) , these are the most sensitive parts of the penis. The outer prepuce. The orifice rim upper. The Muco-cutaneous junction. The Ridged band. Frenulum near the Ridged Band. Frenulum at Muco-Cutaneous Junction. The Orifice rim lower. using the term crime I did not use the term crime, or female circumcision. And you literally used FGM as a reason …
/r/MensRights27/04/22 03:51 AM
3

under surgical conditions You're ignoring the value of the tissue itself. Doing it in a hospital does not negate the loss of the tissue. That's the information that I posted. less legitimate than feminists's fight against female circumcision This is known as a fallacy of relative privation. Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems …
/r/MensRights27/04/22 03:27 AM
8

or enjoyment The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:51 AM
5

not even harmful The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. it's even more hygienic than uncircumcised penises Hygiene is easy with running water.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:41 AM
8

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with an antifungal cream if…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:41 AM
4

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:39 AM
6

And followed by a post hoc fallacy. You are looking at the outcome that circumcision is done, and saying because of that outcome, the input must be that it's medically ethical. This relies on an after the fact justification, rather than you making an actual fundamental argument. And you lash out again! Dude, you are the one lashing out hard in multiple responses. You try everything you can to try to attack the other person just so you can try to mentally dismiss them. Instead of actually discuss…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 02:10 AM
4

You make a little more sense now, easier to address. Now you're trying to put medical ethics as my own personal thing when it's not. You don't like the medical ethics, and you can't respond to them, so you try to put them away as my own personal thing in an attempt to ignore them. That was easy to see through. Medical ethics is an integral part of medicine. It can't be separated from the practice of medicine, they have co-developed together. There is a reason why doctors take the Hippocratic Oat…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 11:43 PM
6

Now your response doesn't make any sense. What am I supposedly thinking? I am referring to the actual medical ethics. But to address this as best possible, you can think whatever you want and apply that to your own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. It's that straightforward.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 11:23 PM
6

Now you're stuck, so you try to lash out instead of actually addressing or countering anything. You're down to "it's legal". That it's currently legal does not mean that it's medically ethical. You can't address this. After that the fact that it is currently legal is not an argument, for it being either medically ethical, or for it to remain legal (which would just be a circular argument). If you want to make an argument, you have actually make one.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 10:07 PM
5

I addressed your point on consent. Dude this is not hard. You said "They also can’t consent to any medical procedures." And I am bringing up that you can intervene on newborns when it is medically necessary. That does not give you free reign to modify their body however you want. Only when it's medically necessary. Say it with me, medically necessary. I’m sorry, did you miss the part where I said I’m okay leaving it to the parents? If you didn't catch it, the parents can only intervene when it's…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 09:10 PM
6

In response to "children cannot consent" from someone else, you said: "They also can’t consent to any medical procedures." Which I addressed with the medical ethics. That it must be medically necessary in order to intervene on someone else's body. That is the basic medical ethics. You can intervene on the newborns body when it is medically necessary. And circumcision is not medically necessary, not by a long shot.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 09:00 PM
4

Red herring fallacy! I let it go the first time but now I'll call it out. This is a thread about circumcision, and you can't discuss circumcision, so you bring in a red herring.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 08:47 PM
5

You can think it's not a big deal and apply that to your own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. That's the whole point of the medical ethics. You can do whatever you want to your own body. You really can. That's the whole point.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 08:25 PM
7

Sorry to say, it sounds like you can't deal with the medical ethics. You have no actual response to it.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 07:54 PM
6

Science > Anecdote. But if we want a study: “The effect of male circumcision on sexuality” “CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.” “RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircu…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 07:31 PM
9

So your response to medical information is that you don't want it. Right.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 07:30 PM
5

Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “This claim is based on retrospective comparisons on non-concurrent studies using dissimilar populations, dissimilar methods and criteria for identifying complications, and they fail to adequately control for the method used, the device, the skill of the practitioner, the environment, and so on. So this claim which is oft repeated why it must be done early, because you’re running out of other reasons, is based on a very poor data analy…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 05:01 PM
5

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. That presentation should answer most everything. If you'd like another you can watch: "Circumcision An Elephant in the Hospital" from Research Assistant Professor Ryan…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:57 PM
6

This portrays it as an either-then-or-now scenario, which is a false dichotomy. It doesn't need to happen at all. Someone left intact at birth can choose to be either circumcised or intact. But someone circumcised at birth can never choose to be intact. That’s a vast and important disparity in options available. babies can’t consent to any medical procedures The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcisio…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:56 PM
6

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:51 PM
9

You may like this: Why don’t men speak out against circumcision.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:49 PM
11

When you read through this study you realize how terrible it is. There are plenty of counter studies, the data that prefers circumcised is horribly old, and he relies heavily on Africa. The US: They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’s biased. To look at it more, this is a study from 1988. Keep in mind the respondents would be born well before that, likely born in the 1958-1968 range at the youngest. Then the next study in Massachusetts found the opposit…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:47 PM
14

You can tell them there is no medical need for it. You can read the Canadian Paediatrics Society's paper on it for the stats. They are terrible. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:45 PM
6

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. BTW wisdom teeth are removed only if and when they are expected to cause an issue. If there is no issue, they are not removed.
/r/MensRights26/04/22 04:43 PM
2

Red herring. This is circumcision. Once again, you can practice whatever you want on your own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. Tradition is important to whom? You? Cool. You can practice your tradition of cutting off whatever body part you want on your own body. And other people can practice their own chosen traditions on their own body.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:45 AM
2

You are stating your religion. And I am stating that you are free to practice your own religion on your own body. And other people are free to practice their own religion on their own body. It really is that simple. Individuals can practice whatever they want on their own body. It's that simple. it's really not that big of a deal. According to whom? You? Cool. You can practice whatever you want on your own body. I'm frankly baffled by how heated the circumcision argument gets If you're not getti…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:26 AM
2

Do you know how many wars have been fought over who is the right god? So you can think whatever you want for your own body and for your own god. And other people can think what they want for their own body and their own chosen god. That's what freedom of choice and freed of religion is.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:47 AM
2

Your god according to you. Other people will have other gods. So. You can do whatever you want to your own body. And other people can do what they want to their own body. That's how freedom of choice works.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 08:50 PM
2

Whose god? Yours? Cool. You can do whatever you want to your own body.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 07:27 PM
2

One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely and completely 100% free to do so. That's how freedom of religion works. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal consideration…
/r/MensRights06/04/22 05:30 PM
4

What means more in a male’s life, a piece of skin or what school district their parents enroll them in? This is known as the fallacy of relative privation: Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies helps prevent STDs and UTIs “It has been estimated that 11…
/r/MensRights06/04/22 05:27 PM
2

People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 05:24 PM
3

I gave the statistics here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tx2hk0/why_isnt_male_infantile_circumcision_illegal/i3kwzh9/. They are terrible.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 04:53 PM
7

They are rich in stem cells, so can be used for many things. One is skincream https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/14/baby-foreskin-facial-boston-hydrafacial/
/r/MensRights06/04/22 04:35 PM
5

You are free to practice your own culture/religion on your own body. You really are. You are not free to practice your culture/religion on other people. They can decide for themselves.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 03:18 PM
21

Circumcision has been done in America Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis. He includes how Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg was an anti-masturbation crusader who suggested for boys circumcision without anesthetic, and for girls applyin…
/r/MensRights06/04/22 03:20 AM
225

Any discussion of a ban is quickly attacked as anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-freedom of religion. Especially after WW2 everyone was afraid of being called anti-Semitic. Here’s an audience member’s personal input on how scary it was to be seen as anti-Semitic after WW2 Plus it's deeply ingrained in US culture for no reason. And discussion of anything genital related is faux pas, so it's simply not talked about. Very few would take on such an issue.
/r/MensRights05/04/22 08:47 PM
18

There is no evidence circumcision affect sexual experience. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. To address your later comments, you can go to 37 minutes in the above presentation for discussion on the me…
/r/MensRights31/03/22 03:58 PM
12

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17155977/ Right from that study: “CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.” “RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory p…
/r/MensRights31/03/22 03:55 PM
3

It's basic body autonomy. Without medical necessity, the patient decides for their own body. Also: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) I recommend watching these presentations: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. This presentatio…
/r/MensRights29/03/22 01:53 AM
15

Body autonomy is a good hill. This isn't like what clothes to put him in.
/r/MensRights12/03/22 09:01 PM
6

poll your male friends about their opinions That doesn't account for 20-30 years of generally decreasing circumcision rates and attitudes. At 58% for newborns in 2010, it really won't be an issue for his generation.
/r/MensRights12/03/22 09:00 PM
1

Besides your response being racist, I think you're very much mistaken if you think that other ethnicities are not pressured into circumcision. Or don't adopt it because of the idea that's how it's done in the US. As a counter point, you can look at UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Those rates have dropped very dramatically, so it's not like it's always linked to ethnicity. I don't really care to respond anymore, if you're arguming for 65% you're chasing after small fry.
/r/MensRights07/03/22 03:16 AM
1

Don't underestimate the West coast, it's been on decline there for a long time. I believe starting with the hippy movement. If you look at the incidence in each state, it's highest in the midwest because that's where it originated. It's lower on the East coast by a little, but much lower on the west coast, and those are the big population centers.
/r/MensRights07/03/22 02:29 AM
4

People are free to circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 03:15 AM
4

Consider that social norms change quickly. The newborn circumcision rate was 58% in 2010. For current generations being uncircumcised will not be an issue socially. Even 2010 is quite a while ago now, and I expect it has changed quite quickly with ‘google everything’ mentality.
/r/MensRights02/03/22 05:19 PM
8

Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this review collapsed across study quality. The conc…
/r/MensRights02/03/22 03:23 AM
12

reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Reduction of 60% is the relative rate which sounds impressive. But the absolute rate sounds very different: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless…
/r/MensRights01/03/22 07:02 PM
12

The highest quality evidence You don't actually give a link, but it sounds like Morris's 2013 paper. Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains.…
/r/MensRights01/03/22 06:50 PM
7

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights01/03/22 06:48 PM
10

The foreskin and glans are mucosal tissues. It's natural and supposed to be like that. Basic hygiene is easy with running water. “In the male newborn, the mucosal surfaces of the inner foreskin and glans penis adhere to one another; the foreskin is not redundant skin."
/r/MensRights27/02/22 10:52 PM
10

Science > Anecdote. BTW that was an objective measurement. They used a Semmes Weinstein monofilament. This is how they work. This is objective and replicable, not a survey.
/r/MensRights27/02/22 08:07 PM
18

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin itself is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights27/02/22 05:05 PM
11

"Brit shalom ("covenant of peace", also called alternative brit (or bris in Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew), brit ben, brit chayim or brit tikkun, is a naming ceremony for newborn Jewish boys that does not involve circumcision." Some reading: (with plenty of links there) Brit Shalom: An Alternative Naming Ceremony Why Are Some Rabbis Secretly Choosing Not to Circumcise Their Sons? Here’s a discussion on it: Non-Circumcising Families in the Jewish Community
/r/MensRights27/02/22 05:04 PM
6

but it’s not like they are removing the tip of the penis I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin itself is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both…
/r/MensRights20/02/22 05:00 AM
6

there are also studies that show otherwise Ah the Bossio study, I know it well. The Result of the Bossio study is "The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites". Then the bizarre Conclusion is "this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis”, which doesn’t make sense when their own data and results showed the foreskin was the most sensitive part to warmth and touch. Why this seemin…
/r/MensRights20/02/22 04:59 AM
8

You can do whatever your god commands you to do to your own body. You don't have the right to cut off body parts of other people for your god. They can cut off their own body parts for their own god. And we can address it more: "Brit shalom ("covenant of peace", also called alternative brit (or bris in Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew), brit ben, brit chayim or brit tikkun, is a naming ceremony for newborn Jewish boys that does not involve circumcision." Some reading: (with plenty of links there) Br…
/r/MensRights14/02/22 04:09 PM
9

One person's religious rights end at another person's body. Period. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely and completely 100% free to do so. You were worried about freedom of religion, and that is how freedom of religion works.
/r/MensRights14/02/22 03:49 PM
12

People are free circumcise themself for their own religion. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights14/02/22 03:41 PM
5

I'm not OP so I don't have to take on his points, but he's clearly talking about the absolute numbers/size/scope done on each. I'll add that FGM is already illegal in the west and is universally condemned. What are we to do? Make it illegal a second time? Circumcision on the other hand, not only is it legal, not only is it accepted, it’s even socially and medically pushed. (The medical pushing from playing up very small medical items.)
/r/MensRights07/02/22 07:45 PM
2

benefits rather than hinders? Benefits is not the standard to intervene on someone else's body. Medical necessity is. If it's not medically necessary, then the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. This also ignores the value of the foreskin itself: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in …
/r/MensRights07/02/22 06:15 PM
6

it has no affect on sexual function and the ability to feel pleasure. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. there is evidence to suggest it rescues the risk of UTIs, STIs and penile cancer From the Canadia…
/r/MensRights07/02/22 04:43 PM
1

No, I have simply cited studies Not to me you haven't. Sorry to say this is the second time you've done this. I may go through just to address them, but other people shouldn't have to hunt down your arguments for you. And even then, the standard is not 'no harm'. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. cite your own Well you show exactly why the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity: Without medical necessity the individual can go throug…
/r/MensRights05/02/22 07:03 PM
1

So I address 1) You can do what you want to your own body, 2) to not conflate day to day activities to be on par with medical surgeries, and 3) the medicine and the medical ethics. And you respond with "emotionally distraught" which leads right into a red herring. Sorry to say, I'm discussing the medicine and the medical ethics of circumcision, and you're doing everything you can to get away from that topic. It's very easy to spot.
/r/MensRights05/02/22 04:57 PM
1

I quoted them directly. Not to me you didn't. But we can address the AAP anyway. The issue is the AAP talks extensively about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthi…
/r/MensRights05/02/22 03:44 PM
2

Don't conflate day to day activities to be on par with medicine. When we are discussing medicine, medical ethics are at play. It’s that simple. And the medical ethics are clear, it must be medically necessary in order to intervene on someone else's body. You can run through your examples yourself, it's all pretty straightforward. And you close with a red herring fallacy. That's its own topic with many of its own considerations.
/r/MensRights04/02/22 11:16 PM
2

You have to clean better Hygiene is easy with running water. risk of glandular cancer "Decreased penile cancer risk NNT = 900 – 322,000 [36][37]". That's a terrible stat. And if you're concerned, it can likely be heavily addressed with HPV vaccine: "There is a strong association between HPV infection and penile cancer regardless of circumcision status, with 80% of tumor specimens being HPV DNA-positive.[37] It is expected that routine HPV vaccination for girls will dramatically decrease the inci…
/r/MensRights04/02/22 06:12 PM
2

If you think it's ok for your body, then go ahead and apply that to your own body. That is not an argument to circumcise other people, eg newborns. Unless it's medically necessary, they get to decide for their own body.
/r/MensRights04/02/22 06:07 PM
6

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” A terrible statistic. Let's also consider that circumcisions are not free, they take resources. So the conversation is about how public resources are best spent. The obvious choice, especially since it must be done regardless, are the less invasive and more effective options like safe-sex education, clean needle programs, promotion of condo…
/r/MensRights25/01/22 02:27 AM
8

The medicalization of circumcision is uniquely American.
/r/MensRights24/01/22 09:34 PM
1

You don't have to feel upset, I was just filling you in on 'not causing any issues'. That is one of the issues of circumcision. Hygiene is easy with running water.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/22 09:30 PM
3

It hasn’t caused any complications in my life. Here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like: “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favourite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get to hear it with the Violas. The violas section has been removed, but it's still your favourite piece of music. How do you know you wouldn't like it better with the Violas? Why wouldn't you want to hear it with the Violas? D…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/22 09:20 PM
2

Ethicist Earp discusses “there’s some work suggesting that early exposure to painful experiences can have a number of downstream adverse consequences for neurodevelopment. But as with many other aspects of circumcision these are grossly understudied and therefore the risks that are associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes is currently unknown. You don't have to directly remember for this.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/22 09:19 PM
3

phimosis "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." This is not common.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/22 09:17 PM
2

I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatrics Society's review. They give the actual stats, one excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. We also know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innerva…
/r/MensRights19/01/22 06:01 PM
3

What kind of argument would work well? I can give you some, but there is so much it's better to narrow it down. Like pure science, ethics, harm, etc.
/r/MensRights19/01/22 05:24 PM
7

On a scientific perspective, it is healthy. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of su…
/r/MensRights19/01/22 05:08 PM
6

There is plenty of scientific support for circumcision as a safe procedure Any number of surgeries can be done safely. It doesn't matter. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself. They get to decide for their own body. it doesn’t cause harm Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis (Full study.) and since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can you…
/r/MensRights19/01/22 05:04 PM
7

People are free to practice their religion on their own body. If they want to circumcise themself for their religion, they are free to do so. But they are not free to practice their religion on other people's bodies, eg newborns. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so.
/r/MensRights19/01/22 04:59 PM
1

That would be like removing the tip of the penis not just the foreskin. I'm really not interested in comparisons, just know that it's the foreskin itself that is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/AntiFeminists17/01/22 10:25 PM
1

Dude I'm literally addressing them each time and you keep putting them out like it's not been addressed. You don't respond to what's written, you just keep saying no harm. So I keep saying that it's both not the standard and there is harm. Don't forget you ignored all the evidence the first guy gave too, that was a lengthy post that was flat out ignored. While you didn't explicitly say it, there's often this idea that the glans is the primary pleasure point. However: The role of the glans is as …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/22 03:24 AM
1

I'm not really concerned with the true ethics of it. I'm just saying why it continues to exist. I'm not sure what to make of this. Sorry to say (seeing as you continue in the next sentence) this seems like you want to put out your talking points and then not engage on discussion about them. That you want to hide behind an idea that your not discussing, you're just putting out alllllllllll these points, but you're not discussing. And you talked about the future of it too, so sorry, I don't buy it…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/22 03:07 AM
1

No, not traditionally. Don't conflate that it's currently legal to mean that it's medically ethical. less prone to sexual diseases “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And condoms must be used regardless. And HIV is not even relevant to a newborn. “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at bi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/22 04:30 PM
1

Sure, whatever. Is this your response to the medical data that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis? It seemed like I had to bring out actual data to start the conversation on effect. If enough men feel that circumcision is hurting their ability to have as much sexual pleasure Are you back to a post hoc justification? This is not the standard to continue doing something. Not the way medical ethics goes. There needs to be a medical necessity to circumcise someone else. cultural gr…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/22 04:41 AM
1

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550, heres a list of benefits for it I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissu…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/22 02:44 AM
1

You're quibbling at words. Sorry to say, but you're the one quibbling at words. This is not much different than "I don't have any problem orgasming." And even if you go with "slightly lessened sexual pleasure" sorry to say you're quibbling at words again, and missing the forest through the trees. I already said: The question is how much is it impacted? Why is any impact accepted when it's not medically needed to begin with? The individual can decide for their own body. not so much less that the …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/22 02:38 AM
1

more cultural harm by deciding not to then harm from things like First consider that social norms change quickly. The newborn circumcision rate was 58% in 2010. For current generations being uncircumcised will not be an issue socially. Even 2010 is quite a while ago now, and I expect it has changed quite quickly with the ‘google everything’ mentality. You see a lot (and I mean a lot) of stories online about people learning about it and changing their mind. Before social media it was harder to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:48 PM
1

Removing the clit is the equivalent to removing the whole penis I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:42 PM
1

-In usa. Where the studies were done That study was actually in Kenya, which is terrible for many reasons. See my reply.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:40 PM
1

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15763713/ Well right off the bat this is Kenya. preference was associated with the belief that it is easier for uncircumcised men to get penile cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS, and that circumcised men have more feeling in their penises, enjoy sex more, and confer more pleasure to their partners First the beliefs about penile cancer and HIV affected their preferences. But the medical reasons are greatly overblown and we know that men and women …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:39 PM
1

These are all examples of fallacy of relative privation. The fallacy of relative privation rejects an argument by stating the existence of a more important problem. The existence of such a worse issue, the fallacy insists, thereby makes the initial argument irrelevant. This fallacy is also known as the appeal to worse problems or “not as bad as”. https://academy4sc.org/video/fallacy-of-relative-privation-all-problems-are-relative/ We can address multiple issues at the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:05 PM
1

Not having a foreskin doesn’t keep a man from experiencing sexual buildup as well. Well the question is how much. Here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like. “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favorite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get to hear it with the Violas. The violas section has been removed, but it's still your favorite piece of music. How do you know you wouldn't like it better wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 09:01 PM
1

I don't have any problem orgasming. There is more to sexual pleasure than orgasm. Far, far more.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/22 08:49 PM
7

There are a ton of studies of normal adult males given circumcision in Africa to see if it would reduce rates of HIV transmission Ah I think you're referring to the Kenya and Uganda studies. Well you gave the conflict of interest right in your sentence. They were pressured to get circumcised for HIV reasons and then asked if there was a downside. Here is the Kenya survey. And we have the Uganda survey. The following applies to both surveys: These surveys were done only two years after circumcisi…
/r/MensRights03/01/22 02:47 AM
12

Plenty of studies show no loss of sensation The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses how the foreskin is heavily innervated, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. from adult circumcision “The effect of male circumcision on sexuality” “CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pl…
/r/MensRights02/01/22 10:56 PM
10

Circumcision is a religious or cultural ritual If someone wants to circumcise themself for their religion/culture/tradition, they are absolutely free to do so. They are not free to circumcise someone else, eg a newborn. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion/culture/traditions, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely free. There is no impediment on the right to practice their own religion on their own body. Same with hygiene and preventative…
/r/MensRights02/01/22 10:50 PM
1

You fucktard. You need potable water to wash, cook, clean, etc. And you open with an ad-hominem fallacy. Looks like I was right, you have nothing left so you double down on the attacks. So easy to see. So that's ad-hominem X1. Now you bring up everything but circumcision. Yup. You really want to steer as far away from that as possible. Red herring fallacy, X1, X2, X3. I'm going to say X3, because you seem to be getting vaguer with hygiene and going for the broadest "wash". And when you combine i…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 02:58 AM
1

You don't need filtered, chlorinated, UV treated water to take a bath. You don't, basic water will do. You don't like that so you really come out swinging, seemingly in the hope that I won't address it. Ever taken a dip in the creek? In the lake? You need that water for drinking and yes for brushing your teeth - I notice how you try to misportray that and strawman that on me. Easy to see through. drinking water Drinking water is, wait for it, drinking water. Yea you really go off trying to confl…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 10:38 PM
2

So……for the 4 billion of us Running water is just a bit of rhetoric, indeed it does not need to be running at all! It doesn't need to be potable, treated, or whatever else, you just need basic water. And yes, hygiene is easy. Or how about the people that do have problems because of it? Well I addressed this: "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 09:31 PM
3

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550 I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" HIV: “The number needed t…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 06:50 PM
7

It is not medically necessary so the decision goes to the patient themself later in life. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of unc…
/r/MensRights30/12/21 10:17 PM
7

Have her read the Canadian Paediatrics Society's review of medical literature http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision. They actually give the terrible stats in a clear and concise manner. One excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
/r/MensRights30/12/21 10:16 PM
3

For everything you listed, the adult patient can decide for themself. None of that is an argument to circumcise other people, eg newborns.
/r/MensRights16/12/21 10:43 PM
3

I recommend watching these presentations. This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20s Long but informative. This presentation from Ethicist Brian Earp excellently covers the medical ethics, cultural norms, and social aspects https://youtu.be/SB-2aQoTQeA Focused on ethics and does an excell…
/r/MensRights16/12/21 10:42 PM
11

making it easier to clean Hygiene is easy with running water. and for better sexual stimulation/pleasure (since it reveals the tip of the penis) The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin and penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The role of the gla…
/r/MensRights11/12/21 10:26 PM
8

There are two aspects here. First to ancient history: Dr. Guest discusses the history of circumcision in Egypt, Greece, and with the Romans, Judaism and Christianity. Quick notes: The first historical evidence for circumcision is Egypt where it was practiced by the priests as a right of passage, likely a substitute for complete castration. It spread through the middle east and was practiced for different reasons; The Amalekites used it as a sign of degradation on their prisoners of war. The Isra…
/r/MensRights11/12/21 10:24 PM
24

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens. "An estima…
/r/MensRights11/12/21 12:38 AM
2

Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this review collapsed across study quality. The conc…
/r/ExRedPill09/12/21 06:14 PM
1

Ok it seems we have to pull out the discussion between Bossio and everyone else that happened to sort out their seemingly contradictory results and conclusions. Through various professional letters and discussion afterwards Bossio clarified that she included the two pain metrics in their conclusion to say they “failed to consistently replicate the findings by Sorrells et al across stimuli”. That’s Bossio’s own emphasis on consistently and across stimuli BTW to clarify things. Across stimuli. Tha…
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:27 PM
2

Consequences. Like...Illegal Circumcision I never understood the argument that since some people may break a law, that means we can't have the law. I think it's a non sequitur. But to further discuss the idea: First the overwhelming majority of circumcisions done in the US are not for religious reasons. Since the overwhelming majority are not deeply rooted, I expect they would accept a potential law on this as written. Second for those that would seek it out, either fortunately or unfortunately …
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:22 AM
3

Another search query? Look I can see you searched "foreskin nerve endings and sexual functioning" Let's see. The first study in that search query has this: “Terminal innervation of the male genitalia, cutaneous sensory receptors of the male foreskin” “Conclusions: Free nerve endings, Meissner's corpuscles and Pacinian corpuscles are present in the human male foreskin and exhibit characteristic staining patterns” That sounds important. Your own link shows how important the foreskin is.
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:12 AM
3

Ok we definitely addressed this one, I remember it. Before we start, notice again how you are not saying anything or what you like about the paper, and instead just spam dump a link. Try that with your teacher/professor and you'd fail hard. I'll bold a part: This study only has somatosensory on the glans, not on the foreskin itself - a glaring omission. It does not include or account for sensation from the foreskin, or other factors during sex like the gliding action of the foreskin and how the …
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:06 AM
2

Ah the Bossio study. Pretty sure we addressed this yesterday too. But notice again how you are spam dumping links without saying anything. The Result of the Bossio study is "The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites". Then the bizarre Conclusion is "this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis”, which doesn’t make sense when their own data and results showed the foreskin was t…
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:04 AM
3

We addressed this yesterday. Why are you posting it again as if it's not already been addressed. BTW you are spam dumping links without making your argument or even what part of the study you find compelling. What would your professor say if you only gave a link instead of writing the essay. But on to the addressal: This paper starts by corroborating the Sorrell's study: The question of whether removal of sensory receptors in the prepuce by circumcision affects sensitivity and/or sexual pleasure…
/r/MensRights29/11/21 04:02 AM
3

You're still saying this after I gave you all the information? adult men show no harm from the surgery. Incorrect: “The effect of male circumcision on sexuality” “CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.” “RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ej…
/r/MensRights29/11/21 03:59 AM
3

knows the difference The difference being that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights29/11/21 03:52 AM
2

Either fortunately or unfortunately circumcision is not a complicated procedure. It's been done outside of hospitals for thousands of years. So if a very very small amount goes underground, it will not really result in much.
/r/MensRights29/11/21 03:50 AM
2

The issue is body autonomy. Without medical need the decision always goes to the patient themselves, later in life. They decide for their own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a sub…
/r/MensRights28/11/21 04:31 PM
3

It's likely a thing called cookies, what you are posting for everyone else is a search query in google scholar. You can even see it in the text in the link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=circumcision+sensitivity+in+adult+males+&oq=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Dv5kflyn8QZsJ You searched for "circumcision sensitivity in adult males" and this is a list of results. It's literally a search query. And of course you don't respond to my counter of Morris's paper.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 05:34 PM
3

The article I cited is a review of numerous OTHER peer-reviewers articles Fully addressed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r1yybg/i_am_not_having_my_baby_circumcised/hmailoh/
/r/MensRights27/11/21 05:06 PM
3

Like many of your other posts, this a search query. Not a link to a study. The top study in this link is this one: “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” “circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a hig…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 05:01 PM
2

Adult males who are circumcised for medical reasons notice no difference after the circumcision. Allow me to highlight a part of that: "for medical reasons" That is not comparing healthy uncircumcised sex to healthy circumcised sex. I addressed this in more detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r23qwh/circumcision_removes_3050_of_the_penile_skin_and/hmaebgv/ The glans is very sensitive either way. The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In c…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:54 PM
1

I addressed this study here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r23qwh/circumcision_removes_3050_of_the_penile_skin_and/hmadi8b/
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:43 PM
1

This is again a search query, not a link to a study. The top study in that search query I addressed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r23qwh/circumcision_removes_3050_of_the_penile_skin_and/hmadi8b/
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:40 PM
1

It is at odds with most studies, Please make your critique/argument why this is a bad study. Otherwise this is an unsubstantiated attempt to ignore.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:37 PM
2

Did you read the entire conclusions? “Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis. “ Ah the Bossio study, I know it well. See this is the problem when you link search queries. You are referencing the second study in that list, but how is anyone to know that? Be specific please and thank you. The Result of the Bossio study is "The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile …
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:35 PM
1

The only studies that matter are those that prospectively evaluate adult men before and after they are circumcised as adults who are experienced in having sex prior to their circumcisions. This was addressed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r23qwh/circumcision_removes_3050_of_the_penile_skin_and/hmacoe8/ A review of all such studies tilts heavily toward that conclusion!! Please substantiate your claim. Not a search query this time, the exact study/review that you are referring …
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:32 PM
1

What I am saying is that a person circumcised as an infant can’t can’t tell the difference, This is not what science shows. From a study that compares intact to circumcised at a young age: “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” “circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:30 PM
1

This study only has somatosensory on the glans, not on the foreskin itself - a glaring omission. It does not include or account for sensation from the foreskin, or other factors during sex like the gliding action of the foreskin and how the foreskin traps moisture in the vagina. They found worse vibration sensation for uncircumcised men but what the hell my partner is not vibrating during sex. They also found better pressure sensation for uncircumcised men, which corroborates the Sorrell study b…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:24 PM
1

Again you are linking a search query and not a paper. Addressed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r23qwh/circumcision_removes_3050_of_the_penile_skin_and/hmab5vm/
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:22 PM
8

www.circumcisionchoice.com has this on their contact page: Warning: Intactivists will try to silence all pro-parent choice resistance to their activism!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that sound like unbiased scientific data to you? This does not look like a good source of information.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:17 PM
1

You're still giving a search query. You're not linking a study, let alone saying what part of the study you find compelling, or even making your argument like you should. *You know I'm going to address it anyway. But that you are posting search queries just shows the low effort of what you're doing. There was an average of 4 years between circumcision and survey (age of 42 to 46). Although this is getting better than the common 2 years, I don’t consider this long term because if we are talking a…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:06 PM
2

Straw man fallacy. You're pinning emotions on to someone just to blow it down. Followed quickly by an ad hominem fallacy.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 10:23 PM
2

This is present day not biblical times. And that's also a bit of exaggeration, you can still practice hygiene with access to water whether it's running or not. Running water is just a convenience.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 10:12 PM
3

You are free to circumcise yourself for your own chosen religion. You may not circumcise somebody else for your religion. They can choose for themselves. Hygiene is easy with running water.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 10:03 PM
3

Do you realize you keep giving search queries and not actual links to a study? No one knows what study you are referring to. Or what part of a study you're referring to. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=circumcision+sensitivity+in+adult+males+&oq=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Dv5kflyn8QZsJ For example, the study at the top of this list is this one: “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” “circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and l…
/r/MensRights26/11/21 08:48 PM
4

You can be glad and apply that to your own body. But that is not an argument to circumcise other people, eg newborns.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:04 PM
3

They compared two separate groups of people, one set already circumcised, and the other not circumcised. One set had three times as many persons in it, making it unbalanced! You don't compare absolute numbers, you compare percentages. This is stats 101. This is the most basic correction done to any study. They then compared subjective experiences of sexual activity Any survey will be subjective, including studies on before and after. A better study is to compare subjective experiences before and…
/r/MensRights26/11/21 06:34 PM
1

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. Also consider that the WHO classifies any non-medicall…
/r/MensRights26/11/21 05:50 PM
14

Circumcision also causes infection: Local infection (minor) NNH = 67.” That means one infection for every 67 circumcisions. So circumcision actually causes roughly twice as many infections as it prevents. They don't say if that requires antibiotics, but right off the bat you're causing twice as many infections as prevented. They need to have the antibiotics available to treat the infections from performing circumcisions in the first place.
/r/MensRights21/11/21 09:08 PM
16

let’s you last longer in sex R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldnn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.” But if you still think that, you are free to circumcise yourself. You really are. cleaning it is ver…
/r/MensRights21/11/21 09:02 PM
13

this is you not understanding cultures If someone wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen culture, they are absolutely free to do so. You may not practice your culture on other people's bodies. and it’s beneficial to them. I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%)…
/r/MensRights21/11/21 08:49 PM
1

See there it is. He talked about medical necessity. He followed up as one of many discussion points “can have a profound effect on children’s mental health and it is often done without the child’s consent.” But you picked up on that one part only. Not the main point. And not the even the other half of the sentence. It’s back to trying to dispute one part, and like I said: To suggest that taking down (which sorry you didn't, it's the insufficient proof issue) a backup argument/discussion point is…
/r/MensRights12/11/21 08:22 PM
1

Well OP didn't use bad arguments, he used medical necessity. To suggest that taking down (which sorry you didn't, it's the insufficient proof issue) a backup argument/discussion point is taking down the main point is bad faith. And you're not going to like the next part. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin and penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its…
/r/MensRights11/11/21 02:46 AM
3

" In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality, as explained in critiques of those studies." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33008776/ Do you realize these are the exact same authors as the previous paper? Morris and Krieger. If you get into this topic you’ll see those two names pop up a lot. They are known to spam pro circumcision articles. And sure enough this reads like a rehash of their p…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 06:00 PM
2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/ "Conclusion: The highest-quality studies suggest Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris an…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 05:55 PM
3

The crux of OP's argument was about medical necessity. But often, one way or another, people have this insatiable need for harm. So I can't blame OP for backing up his discussion about medical necessity with concepts about harm.
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:20 PM
11

Well your discussion shows the exact reason why the discussion is not based around finding harm. It was set up as harm, studies harm were given, then you basically said that harm was not sufficiently proven. This is the exact problem. No one needs to prove harm because someone will always say "not sufficiently proven". It's backwards. What needs to be proven is medical need. That's the direction this goes and your discussion shows exactly why.
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:09 AM
3

Till 18 the child has no say what do you say about that ? Do what the parents should not do anything for their child ?. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usu…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:05 AM
8

there some religions who say to remove the foreskin . Cool. If someone wants to circumcise themself for their religion, they are absolutely free to do so. But they are not free to circumcise others. Eg newborns. If that newborn grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Which results in infection if not cleaned properly “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be cir…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:04 AM
10

That’s because no religion asks for FGM “Within Islam both male and female circumcision are not mentioned in the central text the Quran, and so this is often taken as an argument that it's not really religious practice. However both practices are mentioned in Hadith, which are the prophetic sayings of Muhammad, and this is a secondary source of Islamic law. So both male and female genital cutting have the same scriptural status within Islam and depending on whether you think that's an important …
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:00 AM
13

I never understood the argument that since some people may break a law, that means we can't have the law. I think it's a non sequitur. But to further discuss the idea: First the overwhelming majority of circumcisions done in the US are not for religious reasons. Since the overwhelming majority are not deeply rooted, I expect they would accept a potential law on this as written. Second for those that would seek it out, either fortunately or unfortunately circumcision is a relatively simple proced…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 01:57 AM
16

Cool. If someone wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to circumcise themself. They are not free to circumcise other people, eg newborns. That newborn can choose for themself later in life according to their own chosen religion.
/r/MensRights10/11/21 01:56 AM
16

You don't need to have a negative effect to not do the surgery. You need medical necessity in order to do the surgery. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority o…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 01:54 AM
8

The first link loaded once but now gives an error. Either way I think the addressing the Mayo bits covers it all. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss" HIV: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infect…
/r/MensRights10/11/21 01:44 AM
7

To address this and the cancer stuff, let's just get out all the stats. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." …
/r/MensRights08/11/21 04:25 PM
7

Circumcision isn't a religious issue Well it commonly hides behind religion, not solely though. And any attempts to discuss prohibiting it is quickly met with the idea of "that's against my religious rights."
/r/MensRights08/11/21 04:07 PM
6

circumcisions are always done in a safe manner. Any number of body parts can be removed safely. That doesn't mean that it's fine to do. I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication dur…
/r/MensRights08/11/21 04:05 PM
1

Abuse and misuse of antibiotics is the detriment to health. Not one time usage to treat a UTI. BTW circumcision also causes infection: Local infection (minor) NNH = 67.” That means one infection for every 67 circumcisions. So circumcision actually causes roughly twice as many infections as it prevents. They don't say if that requires antibiotics, but right off the bat you're causing twice as many infections as prevented. And that is antibiotic use for 1 out of 118 boys (or is it two uses of anti…
/r/MensRights05/10/21 05:39 PM
1

Hey I referenced it, it used to be good. But it's not a locked article so looks like some troll got to it.
/r/MensRights05/10/21 03:48 AM
1

Artificially low by how much? 1%, 2%? It's very common to get it done in the hospital. Hospitals sell it there, they want to sell it. The only ones that insist on doing it outside are Jewish (8th day), but even some of them get it done in the hospital or some Reform don't even do it. Source 34 goes to inlander.com which seems to be small town newspaper/newsletter. Wow that should not be a scientific reference. *Actually this is adding up. Whoever wrote in wikipedia "Methodologically flawed calcu…
/r/MensRights05/10/21 03:21 AM
2

Wikipedia being what it is looks like it's been edited, there used to be much more information. It's been changed to overall rate, but since there is a generational factor that does not reflect the newborn rate. Here's another link “Across the 32-year period from 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10% overall, from 64.5% to 58.3%”
/r/MensRights05/10/21 03:00 AM
3

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happ…
/r/MensRights05/10/21 02:38 AM
3

Assuming you're from the US, the newborn circumcision rate was 58% in 2010. For current generations being uncircumcised will not be an issue socially. Even 2010 is quite a while ago now, and I expect it has changed quite quickly. You see a lot (and I mean a lot) of stories online about people learning about it and changing their mind.
/r/MensRights05/10/21 02:27 AM
1

Know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights05/10/21 02:22 AM
5

Advice depends on what kind of person he is. If he's analytical, or emotional, or traditional, etc. I recommend these presentations: If he's analytical: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. If he's more traditional/emotional: This presentation "Circumcision An E…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 03:03 PM
9

Here's another good presentation on it Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 08:14 PM
5

No link to where I called you subhuman. Ergo a complete strawman. That is your connotation. That is not mine. Any connotation you put in is on you. And you continue with attacks and ad hominem fallacies. On the mimicry, I've seen this lack of originality before. It's quite interesting.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:54 AM
4

Please link where I called you subhuman. This is just another straw man fallacy in an attempt to turn the tables. You're trying to create this out of thin air, pin it on me, and then blow it down. We already covered this too, the whole straw man that you're trying to pin these connotations on me. Not to mention the mimicry which is a form of harassment all in itself.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:50 AM
3

More attacks and ad hominem fallacies. Remember that this is still all in reaction to a sound and scientific term intact. This reaction is on you, no matter how much you want to try to attack.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:46 AM
4

Another attack and ad hominem fallacy. I'm giving medical information but you're trying to paint that as something else. Thank you for admitting you're no longer discussing the topic and have no intent to. It just goes to show that you were only here for attacks which makes them ad hominem fallacies. Yeah looking back trying to pin your own connotations on to me is actually quite the straw man fallacy. You really tried to create these connotations and pin them on me, as if I was saying them. But…
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:37 AM
4

More attacks and ad hominem fallacy. Notice how you are trying to change the topic from circumcision and the medicine and medical terms around that to soley attacking the other person. Yep. That's the difference and that's what makes this an ad hominem fallacy. Inb4 before how I discussed your reactions, that was in response to the connotations that you brought up and you were trying to impose. Actually you're trying to pin those connotations on me. That discussion was making clear that any conn…
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:29 AM
3

Yeah this is just more attacks and more ad hominem fallacy. I'm here to discuss medicine or medical terms. It's also funny because my actions of trying to fight for people's rights is literally a social attitude and a presence of a conscience. Again, any connotations or reactions you have to sound and scientific terms is on you.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:20 AM
8

We've already covered this. Intact is literally the sound and scientific term for having a body part. However you feel about that term is on you. You can feel however you like. But calling somebody a sociopath for the sole purpose of attacking them instead of discussing is literally an ad hominem fallacy.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:13 AM
11

More ad hominem fallacy. You're using insults instead of discussion. Your reaction and any connotations you put in is really on you. It really is. Nobody else has anything to do with your reactions.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:09 AM
12

Ad-hominem fallacy. You can think and do whatever you want to your own body.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:05 AM
12

Your reaction to scientifically sound terms is on you. I have nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights18/09/21 12:03 AM
16

Retarded is a term that has fallen into disrepute. Intact has not. Actually intact is literally the more accurate and more scientifically sound term.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:59 PM
15

Circumcision literally means that the patient has no foreskin, and the foreskin is not intact. Whether or not you feel complete is entirely on to you. I have nothing to do with it. Same on whether you care about it or not.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:54 PM
20

You are inserting your own connotations. Intact body parts are literally intact body parts.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:50 PM
23

Let's not confuse normal body functions with the surgical removal of body parts.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:49 PM
21

I am not trying to dehumanize the victims of circumcision.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:48 PM
20

Dr. Guest discusses the term intact: "I use the term intact instead of uncircumcised. And that's a very deliberate term. The term uncircumcised, it doesn't fit with the rest of medical nomenclature because that term implies that the default position or the normal state is the post surgical state which we know is not true. Just imagine if we called people with breasts unmastectomized or unappendectomized. It's a nomenclature of trickery. Intact is a little bit more of a contemporary term and it h…
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:44 PM
13

As well there are many health From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treat…
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:43 PM
19

You can be glad and decide that for yourself. But that is not an argument to circumcise somebody else, eg a newborn. They can decide for their own body later in life. Remember there is a big discrepancy in what someone can do. If a newborn is left intact, then later in life they can choose to be either circumcised or remain intact. But if a newborn is circumcised, they can never choose to be intact.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 11:36 PM
2

You may be interested to know that babies can not get general anesthesia. They can only get local. And the data is mixed on if they leave it on long enough for it to be effective. Or they use a sugar pacifier instead because they think that blocks the pain. Yup, a sugar pacifier instead of the general anesthesia that an adult patient gets. Regardless after that both of them are recovering from removal of the foreskin. It's effectively the same amount of pain regardless of when it's done. As for …
/r/MensRights12/09/21 11:54 PM
3

You hereby impose your ethics on others Two things. First I like how you attempt to portray me leaving other people to decide for themself and their own body as imposing. It's literally the opposite. Second I like how you try to portray medical ethics as my own personal thing. Unfortunately medical ethics is very well developed field. It's not from my head. you don't have significant life experience. This is a weird strawman. Followed by an anecdote. Followed by an attack. Which ironically misse…
/r/MensRights12/09/21 10:05 PM
2

STI's are not relevant to newborns or children. This covers both STIs and HIV: "As with traditional STDs, sexual transmission of HIV occurs only in sexually active individuals. Consequently, from an HIV prevention perspective, if at all effective in a Western context, circumcision can wait until boys are old enough to engage in sexual relationships. Boys can decide for themselves, therefore, whether they want to get circumcised to obtain, at best, partial protection against HIV or rather remain …
/r/MensRights12/09/21 09:28 PM
3

This is your belief This is basic medical ethics. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority…
/r/MensRights12/09/21 07:43 PM
3

If someone wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely. But one person's religious rights ends at another person's body. You may not circumcise somebody else, eg a newborn, for your religion. STIs are not relevant to newborns or children. If an adult wants to circumcise himself for that reason, they are absolutely free to do so. Other people may choose to practice safe sex and wear condoms. Which of course you have to do anyways becau…
/r/MensRights12/09/21 05:48 PM
5

This isn't a harm competition. This isn't an oppression Olympics. It goes against body autonomy and that's all that matters. And it doesn't need to cause a problem. It needs to be medically necessary to intervene on someone else's body, and even heads only when they are incapable of making their own decisions.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 03:53 AM
2

but it has no bad effects and DO HAS health benifits. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 09:43 PM
1

10% of boys will experience a degree of it by age 3, 1-5% will still have issues by 16. "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." There is also an unfortu…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 09:32 PM
2

Removal of the foreskin is nothing close to that. This doesn't need to be a harm competition. Circumcision is bad all on its own and shouldn't be done on that account. Let’s frame it correctly at least, it’s cosmetic. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partne…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 03:31 AM
7

Point was literally in the other reply and sorry to say you try to ignore it, and then here say there's no point. And of course above was that the standard to intervene is medical necessity. We can discuss that more: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences an…
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:37 AM
8

If you want to counter it, then you have to actually counter it instead of trying to disregard it. That study’s conclusion: "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:35 AM
9

And this looks like you're attacking the other instead of discussing the points raised.
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:25 AM
8

Just like any medical procedure, it can be done if and when needed. Doing it before is bizarre. If someone wants to get cut, then they are free to decide that for their own body. And just like any other body modification, it's on them to do. BTW I should have given this information last time: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Arguably the complication rate of newborn circumcision is literally 100%, because it removes that sensitive tissue when there is no medica…
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:24 AM
8

Standard age is 18. You can argue for a slightly lower age to decide for your own body, but that is not an argument for newborn circumcision. The standard for newborn circumcision is medical necessity. Proper penis according to who? You? Ok, you can decide for your own body. And other people can decide for their own body, based on their own personal preference. That's how it works.
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:10 AM
8

There is nothing wrong with being cut, It is however wrong to cut other people's bodies, ie newborns, when there is no medical need. You can decide for your own body, and others should be able to decide for theirs.
/r/MensRights25/08/21 03:01 AM
3

It's hard for people to challenge long held thoughts. Bring it up and plant the seed of doubt and thought.
/r/MensRights25/08/21 02:59 AM
1

You still want more information? Ok. That was in relation to the medical ethics and how circumcision is not "free", so to speak, like it may be portrayed. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants nee…
/r/MensRights25/08/21 02:45 AM
1

More information? Ok. Ethicist Brian Earp discusses the AAP statement “if you assign any value whatsoever to the [foreskin] itself, then its sheer loss should be counted as a harm or a cost to the surgery. ... [Only] if you implicitly assign it a value of zero then it’s seen as having no cost by removing it, except for additional surgical complications.”
/r/MensRights24/08/21 05:35 PM
1

You'd like more information? Ok. Research Assistant Professor Ryan McAllister discuses that the foreskin is 12-15 square inches, the size of a 3”x5” index card, is the most erogenous part of the male, motility during sex, specialized anatomy, and sensitivity.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 05:31 PM
2

Thank you.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 05:01 PM
2

Is begging the question the way to describe this? You want to keep going on about how you feel, but don't want to know why/how other people may think differently. And if anyone talks about why they think differently, it's back to what you feel. If that's the case, then why did you respond to the post? When you say "Really don't see what the big deal is." you're basically asking people to respond saying why they think it's a big deal. And I've given good medical information why people may think i…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 05:00 PM
3

I think the mistake being made in this thread is to apply some nefarious motives to the practice, and even some seriously anti-semetic remarks im I have not said anything along those lines. I don't know what the purpose is of bringing up what other people in the thread may say. this is merely a societal custom that appears to have been promoted by Kellogg in the late 19th century and which most parents and practitioners do unthinkingly, simply because that’s what is done. You may find this inter…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 04:42 PM
2

It's parents choice. Without medical necessity the decision always goes to the patient, in this case later in life. That person can decide for their own body according to the value they place on the body part, whether or not they think it's a hot button issue, and of course their own analysis of the medical information. it should be the child's choice not the parents. ? Then why did you just say it's the parent's choice. I still stand with my belief on my own body You are free to do that. Just l…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 04:34 PM
2

We already covered HIV in your other reply https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pa1ryb/circumcision_is_a_crime_against_humanity_and_a/ha6bfi6/ “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And condoms must be used regardless. And HIV is not even relevant to a newborn. This does not present medical necessity to circumcise newborns. If an adult wants it later in life, they can de…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 04:15 PM
2

Well I'm trying to get away from feelings and on to facts. You said " I just dont see how this is a hot button issue." which is essentially asking for medical information on why it's an issue. I gave that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, which went to feeling nothing missing again "since I don't know what I lost". Looking at that I should have followed up with this: Here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like. “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of m…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 04:12 PM
2

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:59 PM
4

Going over the webmd article: UTI: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And they can easily be treated through standard antibiotics if and when there's an issue. STDs/HIV: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention. Condo…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:58 PM
2

More information: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin and penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:57 PM
2

I prefer medical information. Ethicist Brian Earp discusses the concept and flaws of risk-vs-benefits ratio, how the value of the foreskin is seemingly assigned a value of zero in medicine, the application of personal preferences from the parent vs from the patient, and several other ethical considerations.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:56 PM
5

Dr. Guest: “When we are confronted with conflicting biased evidence I think it's important to say what’s the most reasonable conclusion? So I ask you does removing all of that sensitive nerve tissue from the penis, do you think that's more likely to increase sexual pleasure? Or do you think removing all that sensitive neural tissue from the penis is more likely to decrease sexual pleasure? Based on everything we know about neuroanatomy and the nervous systems what would you guess is more likely.…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:44 AM
4

Well that was the closing portion on feelings before we go to more thinking. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best i…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:43 AM
7

We already covered how the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. As for if that sensitive tissue translate to sexual pleasure, Dr. Guest addresses this in his presentation: “The sensitive areas are removed, does that translate to decreased sexual pleasure? ... I think it's important to say what’s the most reasonable conclusion? So I ask you does removing all of that sensitive nerve tissue from the penis, do you think that's more likely to increase sexual pleasure? Or do you think rem…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:11 AM
3

How about we think and analyze it instead? Or if you want feeling, others may feel like a choice was taken from them. Or they may feel like it IS a big deal. That's up to them. That's why without medical necessity individuals decide for their own body.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:09 AM
6

Lots of information for you. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decisi…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 03:06 AM
7

And yet you continue to engage. Well kinda, not with the information. Back to the topic, more information for you. Ethicist Brian Earp discusses that “if you assign any value whatsoever to the [foreskin] itself, then its sheer loss should be counted as a harm or a cost to the surgery. ... [Only] if you implicitly assign it a value of zero then it’s seen as having no cost by removing it, except for additional surgical complications.”
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:54 AM
4

Circumcision as it pertains to my penis never felt like a choice that was tajen away If you were circumcised as a newborn, that decision was literally taken away from you. Perhaps of information will help: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 m…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:51 AM
3

And you downvote for medical information again. May I remind you that you entered this discussion. Research Assistant Professor Ryan McAllister discuses that the foreskin is 12-15 square inches, the size of a 3”x5” index card, is the most erogenous part of the male, motility during sex, specialized anatomy, and sensitivity.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:49 AM
3

But to each their own That's the whole point. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. But most circumcisions are done to newborns.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:45 AM
3

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min) The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, rest…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:39 AM
3

So you downvote me? Here’s Dr. Guest drawing an analogy that you might like: “The best analogy is imagine your favorite piece of music, a Mozart symphony. You love it, it’s your favourite piece, it’s very beautiful. But for some reason you don't get to hear it with the Violas. The violas section has been removed, but it's still your favourite piece of music. How do you know you wouldn't like it better with the Violas? Why wouldn't you want to hear it with the Violas? Don’t you think it should be…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:36 AM
3

What are the pleasures of foreskin? The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:35 AM
9

The benefits outweigh the risks when it comes to circumcision, as outlined here and here, so I am perfectly ok with the procedure. I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". Take a minute to think about how many 111…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:33 AM
3

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:29 AM
5

WHY is it a big deal for babies to have consent? The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority …
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:26 AM
7

You can be glad and decide that for your own body. But that is not an argument to circumcise somebody else i.e. a newborn. They can decide for their own body later in life.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:21 AM
3

I haven’t lost anything from it Some information for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:19 AM
3

Have to address this differently. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights24/08/21 02:13 AM
1

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights22/07/21 08:55 PM
0

Well let's go through the details on the benefits. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. This would be missed, since "The risk of UTI declines rapidly in males after the first few months of life to an incidence of one in 1000 by one year of age." But UTIs "ca…
/r/MensRights22/07/21 08:53 PM
1

Medical ethics has addressed this. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute …
/r/MensRights22/07/21 03:30 AM
2

You can think it's not a problem and practice that on your own body. Other people can think it is a problem and not practice it on their own bodies. You can practice your own personal preference on your own body, that's the whole point.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 03:08 AM
1

For medical information I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision One excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 02:57 AM
3

Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) And since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 02:57 AM
3

Without medical necessity, medical decisions always go to the person themself. They decide for their own body. That's basic medical ethics. Circumcision violates this. I recommend watching these presentations: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. This presentati…
/r/MensRights22/07/21 02:52 AM
23

This is unfortunately the most likely case.
/r/MensRights17/07/21 05:49 PM
18

Except you said: but if I do get kids, I'd probably get them circumcized too, It's not your decision.
/r/MensRights06/07/21 02:16 AM
10

You do what you want with your own dick, and I do the same with mine That's exactly the point. Outside of medical necessity the decision goes to the individual themself. They can decide on this own chosen culture and traditions and decide for their own body. It's no one else's business to intervene on their body.
/r/MensRights06/07/21 01:41 AM
3

Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis. He includes how Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg was an anti-masturbation crusader who suggested for boys circumcision without anesthetic, and for girls applying carbolic acid to the clitoris. What'…
/r/MensRights25/06/21 01:33 AM
5

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min)
/r/MensRights23/06/21 09:51 PM
3

I'm guessing those that circumcise do so because of perceived norms?
/r/MensRights23/06/21 05:33 PM
5

Cultural bias, pure and simple. And that people don't like discussing their genitals in public. Dr. Guest discusses cultural blind spot of circumcision and father’s bias: “We have a cultural blind spot when it comes to genital cutting. We live in a culture that practices male genital cutting. It’s normal to us, it makes sense to us, it’s perceived as hygienic and socially beneficial to our sons.” That's a very good presentation if you want to be fully informed. He goes over the ancient history f…
/r/MensRights23/06/21 05:32 PM
11

The statistics are horrendous. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be trea…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 02:33 AM
14

Terrible.
/r/MensRights17/06/21 03:27 AM
2

Yup, it's disturbing. Sell for profit.
/r/MensRights16/06/21 03:42 AM
2

I'm not the one making it a harm competition, you guys are. I didn't. I expressly said it is not. I don't have to argue anybody else's points. I made my own points and my own arguments. how male circumcision is harmless. I addressed this with medical ethics. The standard is not harm versus harmless. The standard is medical necessity. you wouldn't feel the need to use hyperbolic language like "genital mutilation." I didn't use that term. You are again assigning other people's actions to me. If yo…
/r/MensRights15/06/21 03:08 AM
6

They don't need to be comparable. This isn't a harm competition. This isn't an oppression olympics. It's body autonomy, plain and simple. The medical ethics are very clear. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give co…
/r/MensRights14/06/21 03:32 AM
4

Cultural bias. And that applies for various mods as well. Dr. Guest discusses cultural blind spot of circumcision and father’s bias: “We have a cultural blind spot when it comes to genital cutting. We live in a culture that practices male genital cutting. It’s normal to us, it makes sense to us, it’s perceived as hygienic and socially beneficial to our sons.”
/r/MensRights14/06/21 03:30 AM
2

That is seriously fucking gross. It amazes me that there are people out there so obsessed with defending male genital mutilation, even in the face of all the evidence proving it to not be helpful, and it being extremely harmful, even in the face of the lack of morality in denying a helpless infant bodily autonomy. Really fucking creepy. That mushroom dude has issues. You said it. The stalker's been following me around for months while saying that I'm attacking him lol. Months and the stalker can…
/r/MensRights06/06/21 05:11 PM
2

But if it doesnt hurt the child, why dies it matter so much. You don't look for hurt, you look for medical necessity. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usual…
/r/MensRights31/05/21 04:02 AM
1

And we have triple ignoral by the stalker once again! First up is notice that the stalker has no response to his own words and his own logic. Instead the stalker just wants the other to stop bringing up the stalker's own logic. No response, just asking the other to stop making the arguments that the stalker can't escape from. Not so easy for the stalker to ignore the stalker’s own words, and I’m happy to keep presenting the stalker’s own logic. Here it is again: "The fact is that circumcision [d…
/r/MensRights30/05/21 03:04 AM
1

Keep watching how the stalker refuses to discuss the topic of circumcision. Nothing. Instead the stalker's falls back on attacks. x2. x3. x4. x5. x6. So easy to see through when the stalker is literally spamming up to nine! (9!) threads. Currently down to five, but I’m still gonna call the stalker out on the 9. The stalker projects the literal behavior that the stalker does. The stalker doesn’t respond to any of the points, so attempts to spam message to bully the other. Don’t forget the stalker…
/r/MensRights30/05/21 03:04 AM
1

Triple ignoral by the stalker again. The stalker won't respond to anything that is written. Not a single point. First ignoral. The stalker runs away from his own logic once again. The stalker put these words out. They are literally the stalkers words. But the stalker can't back it up anymore so tries to ignore it completely. According to the stalker’s logic purpose does not matter. The only thing that matters is medical benefits. Here it is again: "The fact is that circumcision [double mastectom…
/r/MensRights29/05/21 04:25 AM
1

Keep watching how the stalker won't touch the actual topic of circumcision. Nothing. Instead the stalker attempts to attack. And project their literal actions. I called it so perfectly. The stalker is now stalking and spamming nine! (9!) threads now. The stalker can’t discuss the topic, so relies on trying to overwhelm the other with stalking, spam messages, attacks, projection, and gaslighting. You know, bullying. Which the stalker then projects. It’s so easy to see through, all anyone has to d…
/r/MensRights29/05/21 04:25 AM
3

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. All from being triggered by basic medical information. Notice how the stalker does not substantiate their claim. In a literal thread that states how medical necessity is the standard. You can't make this up. And the …
/r/MensRights29/05/21 04:24 AM
2

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. All from being triggered by basic medical information. And notice how I literally gave the statistics for UTIs and STIs. But the stalker doesn't discuss the literal stats. No counters or substations of their own. Nad…
/r/MensRights29/05/21 04:24 AM
2

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. And notice how they don’t address any of the medical information. All from being triggered by basic medical information. And the stalker is now stalking and spamming nine! (9!) threads now. The stalker can’t discuss …
/r/MensRights29/05/21 04:24 AM
1

Watch again how the stalker can't and won't discuss the topic of circumcision. Won't even touch it. Instead the stalker's sole purpose is to attack. x2. x3. And tries to turn the tables oddly. Don't forget the stalker is literally stalking. Literally. And the stalker is literally attacking. Literally. But wants to pretend they're not. Which is, you know, literally gaslighting. Too easy to see through. I think I called it perfectly. The stalker attempts to rely on the bullshit asymmetry principle…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 10:53 PM
1

And the stalker's back to triple ignoral! Trying to ignore and call everything spam again, instead of you know responding to anything. First ignoral is that the stalker has to ignore his own logic. According to the stalkers logic, purpose does not matter. The only thing that matters is medical benefit. The stalker ate his words hard and has to ignore exactly what he said. Noticed that the stalker will not acknowledge what he said and instead tries to move the goal posts. Here it is again: "The f…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 10:53 PM
1

Watch again how the stalker doesn't touch the actual topic of circumcision. Not with a 10 ft pole. And the stalker attacks instead. x2. x3. x4. x5. x6. x7. Looks like I called the stalker tactic perfectly. No response to that. Just attacks. I think I called it perfectly. The stalker attempts to rely on the bullshit asymmetry principle. The stalker has no counters or arguments, so creates six (6!) spam chains where the stalker won't discuss the subject. So easy to see through.
/r/MensRights28/05/21 04:53 PM
1

And we have triple ignoral again! First ignoral, the stalker ate his own words hard. I notice all the stalker won't even respond to his own words that the only thing that matters is medical benefits. Here it is again: "The fact is that circumcision [double mastectomies] is medically beneficial, and that’s all that’s needed to justify circumcision [double mastectomies].". The stalker has to now completely and utterly ignore his own logic. Won’t even touch his own logic anymore. Won’t even approac…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 04:53 PM
1

Confirmed again that the stalker is not even reading! No response to that. Instead the stalker goes back to generic attacks that can be said without reading or responding. So watch again how the stalker won't discuss the topic. Yup. At this point I’m just going to call it out. The stalker has 6 comment chains going with me, all from stalking. Why? Because the stalker depends on spamming the other, the exact action that he projects. The stalker can’t discuss the topic, so relies on trying to over…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 02:00 AM
1

Watch again as the stalker still doesn't discuss the subject. Is the stalker even reading? Doesn't look like it Instead the stalker goes back to generalized attacks. Which don't respond to anything. And projection of their own literal actions. Easy to see through. Once again : The stalker is just running around in a circle. Refusing to substantiate any claims, ignoring what’s said, calling everything spam, and lashing out at others. And then back to the start again. Running around in circles.
/r/MensRights27/05/21 03:05 AM
1

And triple ignore again! The stalker is so stuck that he has to ignore everything again. The stalkers own logic, it does not matter. The only thing that matters according to the stalker's logic is medical benefits. "The fact is that circumcision [double mastectomies] is medically beneficial, and that’s all that’s needed to justify circumcision [double mastectomies].". The stalker ate his own words hard, and has to now completely and utterly ignore his own logic. That's the first thing ignoral. T…
/r/MensRights27/05/21 03:05 AM
3

proxy consent can only be given in situations of medical necessity, such as disease, trauma, or deformity. The healthy newborn male has a foreskin that is without disease, trauma, or deformity. The Task Force concluded that circumcision was not medically necessary. Simple and powerful.
/r/MensRights26/05/21 04:31 AM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min) Parents make healthcare decisions for their kids, plain and simple. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumc…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 03:33 AM
2

The statistics are terrible. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be trea…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 01:00 AM
2

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 12:59 AM
2

Vaccines are medically necessary. Children are exposed to those diseases and being airborne there is no prevention possible short of living in a literal bubble. And there’s commonly no treatment. They have no other prevention and usually no treatment. Vaccination is the only prevention and, essentially, treatment. It can not reasonably be delayed until the patient can make their own decision. However, each cited benefit of circumcision has a normal treatment or prevention, which is both more eff…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 12:58 AM
2

The statistics are terrible. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be trea…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 12:58 AM
1

Wow. I expected the stalker to ignore this own logic, but the stalker really ignores everything! According to the stalkers logic, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is medical benefits. "The fact is that circumcision [double mastectomies] is medically beneficial, and that’s all that’s needed to justify circumcision [double mastectomies].". The stalker ate his own words hard, and has to now completely and utterly ignore his own logic. Instead the stalker turns back to the same thing w…
/r/MensRights23/05/21 03:49 PM
1

Watch again how the stalker doesn't even attempt to discuss the topic of circumcision. The topic of this thread. Notice how I'm here to discuss the topic, but the stalker is not. Instead the stalker is only here to attack the other. And projects their own literal stalking, attacks, and gaslighting. And the stalker can't even see that's what makes the stalkers attacks and gaslighting so easy for everyone to see through. Still waiting for the stalker to make their own argument. It's not on anyone …
/r/MensRights23/05/21 03:49 PM
1

Watch the stalker run away from their own logic: "The fact is that circumcision [double mastectomies] is medically beneficial, and that’s all that’s needed to justify circumcision [double mastectomies]." Literally the stalker's logic, which the stalker now turns away from completely. If the stalker thinks their body parts are useless, then the stalker is free to cut off their own body parts. Absolutely free. Otherwise the decision goes to the individual themself to decide for their own body, lat…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 08:02 PM
1

Keep watching as the stalker still doesn't discuss the subject. The stalker instead relies on generalized attacks again. And projection of their own literal actions. Easy to see through. The stalker literally won't discuss the subject. Once again : The stalker is just running around in a circle. Refusing to substantiate any claims, ignoring what’s said, calling everything spam, and lashing out at others. And then back to the start again. Running around in circles. Literally every time.
/r/MensRights22/05/21 08:02 PM
1

Notice again that the stalker doesn't even attempt to discuss the topic of circumcision. The topic of this thread. Instead the stalker attacks the other. And projects their own literal actions. Since this is in lieu of an arguments, it's an ad-hominem fallacy for all intents and purposes. I'm happy to discuss the subject, but the stalker won't. The stalker must make their own argument. It's not on anyone else to do.
/r/MensRights22/05/21 05:16 PM
1

Watch as I called the stalkers response. The stalker's only response to basic medical information is to call it spam and attack it. No real response, no counters, no information of the stalker's own, no citations. Nothing. All claims must be substantiated of course. And the stalker must make and substantiate their own claim. "About 1 in 8 (12%) women in the US will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime." and "The chance that a woman will die from breast cancer is about 1 in 37". S…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 05:16 PM
2

Notice how the stalker immediately opens with an attack. It's really just the stalker attempting a pre-emptive attack though, by saying the word spam the stalker thinks the stalker can get out of the response. But unfortunately for the stalker: From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be tr…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 04:21 AM
1

And here the stalker continues to not discuss the subject. And instead attacks and projects their own literal actions. Easy to see through. So again: The stalker is just running around in a circle. Refusing to substantiate any claims, ignoring what’s said, calling everything spam, and lashing out at others. And then back to the start again. Running around in circles. The stalker must make their own argument and substantiate their claims.
/r/MensRights22/05/21 04:21 AM
3

Watch again how the stalker doesn't consider, discuss, counter, or debate what was said. Nothing again! I've made 7 unique responses and the stalker doesn't respond to any points made. Instead the stalker again relies on attacking the other again. x2. And watch as I make an 8th response: Another way to put it. Start thinking about individuals and their body autonomy rights. Stop thinking about ‘groups’. Rights exist at the individual level. And that includes body autonomy. If you want to overrid…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 02:23 AM
1

Notice the stalker admits to not even discussing the subject, as if that were a good thing. Instead the stalker attempts to dismiss everything again as spam. And we're back to what was already said: The stalker is just running around in a circle. Refusing to substantiate any claims, ignoring what’s said, calling everything spam, and lashing out at others. And then back to the start again. Running around in circles. And the stalker is back to square one again: The stalker must substantiate their …
/r/MensRights22/05/21 02:23 AM
1

Sorry to say, if you want to claim "opposing view" you have to present your evidence. As it is now, there is no way to respond to this handwave. But we can address which way the medical ethics goes for exactly this reason. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequen…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 01:47 AM
1

And the stalker again makes no effort to discuss the subject of this thread. Not one thing. Instead the stalker doesn't say anything really. So we're back to the stalker must substantiate their claims. All claims must be substantiated. Quotation and citation. No one else is going to do it for the stalker.
/r/MensRights22/05/21 01:45 AM
2

Watch again as the stalker makes no argument, no counter, no response to what was posted. Nothing. Instead the stalker falls back on making attacks. x2. x3. No response, just attacks. I've make 6 different responses to religion and the stalker has no response. Watch as I address it a 7th time, even though the stalker isn't even attempting to discuss it: Ethicist Brian Earp discusses the parent’s religion: (paraphrased) “Whose beliefs are we talking about? Young people are increasingly disidentif…
/r/MensRights22/05/21 01:45 AM
1

Notice how the stalker doesn't even attempt to discuss the topic of circumcision anymore. A simple standard that the stalker must substantiate their claims leads to the stalker not even attempting to discuss the topic. Let alone actually cite sources for their claims, make their arguments, or attempt to counter what's said. Nothing. Nada. Nill. Instead the stalker descends into making attacks. And since that is in lieu of an argument, that makes it an ad-hominem fallacy for all intents and purpo…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 04:40 AM
2

Once again the stalker doesn't consider, discuss, counter, or debate what was said. The stalker now for the fifth time ignores what's said without even acknowledging it. And for anyone reading, look how I'm discussing the subject matter of circumcision. But instead the stalker steers clear of the topic and instead chooses to descend into personal attacks only. x2. x3. For the sixth time, even though the stalker didn't mention it, I will continue to address: If someone is left intact at birth, th…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 04:40 AM
3

You should mention the medical ethics. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substit…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 02:15 AM
4

Here are one, two, three studies that show I gave you the stats in a different response, that addresses one. two This study measures touch sensitivity on the shaft and glans. It is vague whether the shaft includes or does not include the foreskin, which is a big component if we are trying to compare the two. That is a huge, glaring omission since the foreskin itself is a large and sensitive piece of genital tissue. If we want to look at touch sensitivity, we should look at the Sorrell’s study wh…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 02:07 AM
2

Also looking at science/literature the pros much outweigh the cons. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 02:02 AM
1

And the stalker fails to substantiate their claim again. It's not on anyone else to find the stalkers argument for them. Red herrings were addressed. Note that each time a red herring was addressed, the response was ignored and the stalker just moved on to the next red herring. Circumcision was addressed. The stalker ignored that, and brought up vaccines. Vaccines were addressed. The stalker ignored the response, and brought up flu. Flu was addressed. The stalker ignored that response too, and b…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 01:53 AM
2

And again the stalker doesn't acknowledge, consider, counter, or respond to anything that was said. The stalker instead, for the fourth time, ignores what's said and says the exact same thing, without countering any points covered. And of course the stalker relies on attacks instead. x2. x3. x4. x5. I will address it for a 5th time with even more considerations. Notice that I am giving actual responses with more and more considerations, while the stalker ignores it all. But to quickly bold a pre…
/r/MensRights21/05/21 01:53 AM
3

Watch again how the stalker doesn't acknowledge, address, or counter what was said. Everything was ignored. And the stalker says the exact same thing, without countering. I will continue again: No one should conflate or project their own religion with other people's religion. You can't know what someone else will choose as their religion later in life. One person is free to pick their own religion, and practice that on their own body. Just as other people are free to pick their own religion late…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 04:47 AM
3

Watch as the stalker ignores the medical ethics that are clear as day: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only …
/r/MensRights20/05/21 04:47 AM
2

Notice how the stalker doesn't acknowledge, address, or counter what was said. It was ignored and the stalker reiterates the same thing without countering anything or developing anything new. But notice that I will continue: If they choose a certain religion, they are free to practice their religion on their own body. Now whose rights are paramount, the parent's or the individual's? It's clear in all discussions, analysis, and precedents that an individual’s rights are paramount, over anyone els…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 03:24 AM
3

Notice how the stalker still doesn't substantiate their previous claims! Easy to see through. It's not on anyone else to make the stalkers arguments. Instead the stalker attempts to ignore the addressal of flu vaccine, and instead attempts to attack it as spam. That was of course after ignoring the addressal of vaccines as a whole. Notice the stalker doesn't address any of this. And of course the stalker is literally started two comment chains when one would do. So the stalker literally spammed.…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 03:24 AM
5

Notice how the stalker doesn't address anything that was written. Instead it was ignored. Religious freedom is the right to practice your religion on yourself and your own body. There is no freedom of religion to practice your religion on other people's bodies. Other individuals can practice their own chosen religion on their own body. That’s what freedom of religion is. Also notice how the stalker needs to spam multiple comment chains. Currently 4! That's right, 4 comment chains in two differen…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 01:48 AM
4

Notice how the stalker does not substantiate any claims. Nope. All claims must be substantiated. It's not on anyone else to find the stalkers information for them. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. In…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 01:48 AM
4

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. All from being triggered by basic medical information. Stalking in two other comment chains wasn't enough, so the stalker needs a third! People are still absolutely free to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion. So not circumcising newborns, i.e. not circumcising other peop…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 01:14 AM
4

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. All from being triggered by basic medical information. Stalking in two three other comment chains wasn't enough, so the stalker needs a third fourth! Notice that the stalker literally spammed two replies to my post. The stalker relies on creating multiple chains for some reason. “It ha…
/r/MensRights20/05/21 01:14 AM
9

One person's religious rights ends at another person's body. If that person grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely.
/r/MensRights19/05/21 02:06 AM
1

You're welcome. But you don't have to be a doctor to read through the information.
/r/MensRights18/05/21 05:28 PM
1

The glans was measured and that data is in there. Look at point 9 Middle of the Glans, it takes ~1.9 grams of pressure to notice the touch. Point 4 the Muco-Cutaneous Junction takes ~0.2 grams of pressure. Which works out to 5.8 x more pressure to feel something in the middle of the Glans than to feel something at the Muco-Cutaneous Junction. While you didn't explicitly say it, there's often this idea that the glans is the primary pleasure point. However: The role of the glans is as a cushion to…
/r/MensRights18/05/21 12:40 AM
7

Except the foreskin literally is the most sensitive part of the penis. Take a look at the diagram (Full study.) This is an objective measurement using a Semmes Weinstein monofilament. This is how they work. This is objective and replicable, not a survey. If you'd like, Dr Guest walks through the Sorrells study here https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=35m We can also go over the histology if you want.
/r/MensRights17/05/21 04:31 AM
7

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.) Also watch Dr. Guest discussing the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.(for ~15 min) As for your other comments, that is the individual deciding for themselves. Just like for that, circumcision should go to the individual themself. They can decide for his own body.
/r/MensRights17/05/21 01:26 AM
9

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society review of medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens. "An estima…
/r/MensRights17/05/21 01:23 AM
8

Cultural blind spot, that's it. Dr. Guest discusses cultural blind spot of circumcision and father’s bias: “We have a cultural blind spot when it comes to genital cutting. We live in a culture that practices male genital cutting. It’s normal to us, it makes sense to us, it’s perceived as hygienic and socially beneficial to our sons.”
/r/MensRights17/05/21 01:22 AM
5

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. Notice how the stalker does not substantiate any their claims. And notice how they don’t address any of the medical information. And the stalkers current two spam chains isn't enough, so the stalker wants another thi…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 10:10 PM
6

the head of the penis, which is the most sensitive The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the corpora cavernosa and the female genitalia, preve…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 04:34 PM
3

For medical information you should send him the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats on the talking points which makes it clear. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision One excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 04:32 PM
3

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin and penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 04:31 PM
6

Notice again how the stalker can't address what's said, and instead resorts to ad-hominem fallacies! LOL Too funny! Combined with the stalking, All from being triggered by basic medical information. I expect more lashing out!
/r/MensRights29/04/21 01:37 AM
6

Notice again the complete inability to address any of the medical information that is staring them in the face lol. All from being triggered by basic medical information.
/r/MensRights29/04/21 01:19 AM
4

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. And notice how they don’t address any of the medical information. All from being triggered by basic medical information.
/r/MensRights29/04/21 01:00 AM
3

Part 2 of 2. antibiotic use is creating more and more resistant strains. If you want to cut off your own body parts to reduce your antibiotic use, you are free to do so. Does that sound insane? It does to me, and that's because it is. But you are free to do that to your own body. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. if we are considering the chance of someone developing one or the other or a host of other rare complications with the foreskin, the significance is…
/r/MensRights28/04/21 03:21 AM
3

Well I tried to make this 1 response, but there's a lot that needs to be covered. Part 1 of 2. I was trying to stress the point that you can find research on almost every side right now. I thoroughly addressed the studies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-020-00354-y.pdf Sorry at this point I'm going to call it out. You're just spam dumping links for me to address. I already addressed them previously and now you just spam dump more without even responding to what I've said. If I address th…
/r/MensRights28/04/21 03:21 AM
7

Circumcised baby's have lower UTI İnfection and men have lower risk of STİs then men who aren't circumcised as well as decreased risk of penile cancer and less risk of cervical cancer with your (female) sex partner and more. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibioti…
/r/MensRights28/04/21 01:48 AM
3

It's also not as simple as saying sensitivity is lowered in all cases Sensitive genital tissue is removed. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) By definition that sensitive tissue is lost, and thus sensitivity is reduced. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1016/S0022-5347%2805%2965097-5 There was an average of 4 years between circumcision and survey (age of 42 to 46). Although this is getting better than the common 2 years, I don’t consider this long term becau…
/r/MensRights28/04/21 01:44 AM
10

I recommend watching this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He continues on to medical aspects. You can also read the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
/r/MensRights27/04/21 01:42 PM
2

Good information for anyone (cough) to read.
/r/MensRights26/04/21 07:58 PM
5

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights26/04/21 07:50 PM
4

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happ…
/r/MensRights26/04/21 07:50 PM
1

Good content here.
/r/MensRights23/04/21 09:07 PM
3

One of your best victories, well done.
/r/MensRights22/04/21 09:56 PM
1

Good reading and good comments in here for everyone.
/r/MensRights22/04/21 09:54 PM
3

The medical information I gave above stands unchallenged. There was no response. If you want to make your argument, then you have to actually do so. false accusations It seems you don’t like your literal stalking and attacks, so you want to turn the tables and project it onto others. But once again, how do you think you literally ended up on this thread? Literally stalking! And what did you come here for? To literally attack! And what were all the PMs? Literally stalking and attacking! Another f…
/r/MensRights16/04/21 02:37 PM
12

Circumcision is healthy From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated wit…
/r/MensRights16/04/21 02:38 AM
12

Aww more stalking. Ladies and gentleman, welcome my stalker! They were so perturbed by basic medical information they stalk, attack, harass, bully, and gaslight! For months now! All from basic medical information. Every comment they continue to make shows their stalking and attacks. And notice how they don’t address any of the medical information. spam Hey we already covered this! That’s a funny way to say that I made my argument LOL. You don’t want the medical information or medical ethics to e…
/r/MensRights16/04/21 02:36 AM
6

SMH.
/r/MensRights16/04/21 02:16 AM
17

cause it's my culture and religion. You are free to practice your culture and religion on your own body. And other people, aka your kids can practice their own chosen culture and religion on their own body. That's how freedom of choice works. it's not harmful if done properly so whats the issue with it. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often …
/r/MensRights16/04/21 02:15 AM
1

You may find this interesting: “Within Islam both male and female circumcision are not mentioned in the central text the Quran, and so this is often taken as an argument that it's not really religious practice. However both practices are mentioned in Hadith, which are the prophetic sayings of Muhammad, and this is a secondary source of Islamic law. So both male and female genital cutting have the same scriptural status within Islam and depending on whether you think that's an important basis for…
/r/MensRights10/04/21 09:23 PM
1

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 08:41 PM
1

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 08:41 PM
6

Ok I'll reword even though I think it was clear. Well in that case, no one is attacking peoplethe victims that have immense cultural pressure to do this to themselves either. It's a bad situation. I'm not touching the rest.
/r/MensRights07/04/21 04:31 AM
3

Well in that case, no one is attacking people that have immense cultural pressure either. It's a bad situation.
/r/MensRights07/04/21 03:30 AM
2

I have a dorsal slit at age 13, I still remember it. I am Filipino. I despise Intactivism because it made me feel horrible about myself and made me fall into quite the rabbit hole. Intactivism isn't a redpill, it was a blackpill. How did it make you feel horrible about yourself? Just to be clear, no one is attacking the victims of newborn circumcision. And to address your case, it sounds like you had a medical case, though you don't say specifically.
/r/MensRights07/04/21 02:09 AM
3

glans so sensitive it made blowjobs painful Going over the post, it's actually not surprising if she focused on the glans. There's often this idea that the glans is the primary pleasure point. However: The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated tha…
/r/MensRights02/04/21 01:42 AM
3

This read just like a rehash of his previous paper mentioned above ”Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction? A systematic review.” So I think Bossio's criticism of the previous paper still works: Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no significant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status." "In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality”…
/r/MensRights02/04/21 01:36 AM
2

no way that we can scientifically measure and conclusively prove that circumcision lessens pleasure. There's no measurement with an instrument, that gives a reading, that is objective, of sexual pleasure. The best objective measurement is touch sensitivity which was done by Sorrells in this study: "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" Here's an infographic with the results showing that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) That study’s conclusion: "The…
/r/MensRights02/04/21 01:33 AM
4

The intent was to reduce sexual pleasure, which I think is an obvious harm back then and certainly today. There's a reason behind the concept of "First do no harm". The very first thing you do is not cause harm like cutting off body parts unless absolutely necessary. And of course the issues with, I think, the obvious influence of their personal religious beliefs.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 03:46 AM
3

circumcision argument - the female version is the equivalent of removing the entire head of the penis. I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Not the glans. Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the l…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:49 AM
1

I don't need to say anything about FGM to say that circumcision has an effect on sexual pleasure, that it's bad, and shouldn't be done. That can all be done and discussed based on circumcision and male anatomy all on it's own.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:47 AM
2

From the start, I never compared them. I gave information that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, not the glans.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:33 AM
1

The OP wrote about circumcision on males being a sign of disposability. My point is that FGM is far worse, makes women more disposable. So OP talked about circumcision. And highlighted the disparity in acceptance and action towards them. He didn't compare impact or effects. (And even if OP did, I do not have to take on his points verbatim.) So, you're the one that's actually trying to restructure the discussion, and I'm the one denying you that opportunity. It does not need to be compared or to …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:30 AM
1

I'm not interested in comparing the two.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:11 AM
2

I said at the start, I'm not interested in comparing them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 02:02 AM
2

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. And there is more to sexual pleasure than ability to…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:54 AM
2

For your question, I'm not going to directly answer it because I think it's a strange false dichotomy to choose one or the other. And it also pulls on the large visual effect, and what the current norm is and society's acceptance of it. I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but it's a strange false dichotomy (because neither has to be removed it's a false choice) to get people to say that they'd lose ____, which would then be taken to make certain portrayals. I'd rather discuss the actual tissue…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:53 AM
2

You may find this interesting then: Dr. Guest discusses the history of circumcision in his presentation. Quick notes: The first historical evidence for circumcision is Egypt where it was practiced by the priests as a rite of passage, likely a substitute for complete castration. It spread through the middle east and was practiced for different reasons: The Amalekites used it as a sign of degradation on their prisoners of war. The Israelites used it as a tribal markings starting 500 BCE to unify t…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:34 AM
2

There's often this idea that the glans is the primary pleasure point. However: The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the corpora cavernosa and the female genitalia, preventing corporal trauma during episodes of…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:33 AM
2

it would be cutting off the head of your dick, not the foreskin. I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation (for ~15 minutes) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:22 AM
2

In the past male circumcision had a utility, now it's ceremonial. Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:21 AM
1

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society’s review of the medical literature: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happ…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 01:20 AM
1

The intent isn't to cause harm Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 01:09 AM
2

Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “This claim is based on retrospective comparisons on non-concurrent studies using dissimilar populations, dissimilar methods and criteria for identifying complications, and they fail to adequately control for the method used, the device, the skill of the practitioner, the environment, and so on. So this claim which is oft repeated why it must be done early, because you’re running out of other reasons, is based on a very poor data analy…
/r/MensRights31/03/21 01:09 AM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.) I recommend watching these presentations: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. This presentation "Circumcision An Elephant in the Hospital" from Research Assistant Professor Ryan McAllister chall…
/r/MensRights24/03/21 02:14 AM
3

You can find it fine and practice that on your own body. Other people can decide for their own bodies. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights23/03/21 01:22 AM
2

It doesn't need to be bad, it needs to be medically necessary to intervene on someone else's body. That's the direction it goes. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision ma…
/r/MensRights19/03/21 09:31 PM
4

rate of complications of MC is 6 times higher for adults. ~50% has sex before 18 years old (US surveys) Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “This claim is based on retrospective comparisons on non-concurrent studies using dissimilar populations, dissimilar methods and criteria for identifying complications, and they fail to adequately control for the method used, the device, the skill of the practitioner, the environment, and so on. So this claim which is oft repeated wh…
/r/BlackPillScience25/02/21 02:07 AM
2

For medical information I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision One excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
/r/MensRights15/02/21 04:32 PM
1

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. “The number needed to [circumc…
/r/MensRights13/02/21 03:28 AM
2

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not common and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. “The number needed to [circumc…
/r/MensRights13/02/21 03:01 AM
11

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also watch this presentation on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. contracting STDs “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in blac…
/r/MensRights06/02/21 08:09 PM
6

Hello Docb30tn This ignores the value of the foreskin itself. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. As for the benefits, from the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “I…
/r/MensRights25/01/21 02:18 AM
3

criminal harassment Replying to my inbox is harassment? LOL. You can stop replying, no one is forcing you to participate. But you want the last word so you desperately want the other to stop replying. I can’t stop laughing. Ad-hom fallacy. You can’t debate the subject anymore so you attempt to attack the other. Easy to see through. And you attempt to say the other can’t even reply. Also easy to see through. I will continue to reply to my inbox. And I’m happy to discuss the science and medicine, …
/r/MensRights02/01/21 08:37 PM
1

You've still not given it which means it doesn't exist and therefore had been fabricated See there it is. You don’t want to accept one source, so you ask for a different one. I call this the ‘you must now jump through this other hoop’ fallacy. Even if I did, then be ‘but it can be interpreted this other way’, and then we’re right back to doing individual interpretations of religious texts like I already said. All in an attempt to ignore the source given. To point out what’s also going on, you’re…
/r/MensRights02/01/21 08:37 PM
8

don’t think that the evidence you’ve presented invalidates my own experiences Science > anecdote. From a falsificationist perspective you can have all the cherry picked Ah you can't counter so you try to disregard everything as cherry picked. Sorry you have to actually counter it. That's where you say you don't care, and then I point out that you cared enough to post many, many claims and points about it. But when countered it's "don't care" all of a sudden. that circumcision is bad who knows th…
/r/MensRights02/01/21 04:30 AM
9

multiple people mentioned FGM. I wasn’t the one who originally made the comparison. Other people are other people, I didn't compare them. In this conversation between you and me, you are the one that compared them and tried to pin it on me that I'm conflating them. In this conversation between you and me, yes you are the one that originally made the comparison. I care about serious problems Serious problems is not the standard whether or not to do a procedure. Medical necessity is.The Canadian P…
/r/MensRights02/01/21 02:45 AM
5

I posted someone's analysis of it. It seems you don't like that so you're trying ask for another source, while ignoring what's already posted. And this doesn't relate to pretty much anything I've said regarding circumcision, religious arguments, that each person can apply their own chosen religion to their own body, that one person's rights ends at another person's body, and that the individual's rights are paramount.
/r/MensRights02/01/21 02:32 AM
5

Now we're doing individual interpretations of religious texts. Both FGM and circumcision are in the Hadith which is a source of Islamic law, even if it's secondary to the Quran. therefore its up to the person in question as stated by modern day scholar I'm not going to watch these because I'm not interested in religious arguments. Each person can apply their own chosen religion to their own body. So if you are saying, like it sounds, that it's up to the individual to decide for their own body as…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 10:55 PM
7

You can apply your own religious thoughts to your own body. Really you can. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. As covered above: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. I…
/r/RPChristians01/01/21 10:26 PM
9

Lmfao it would be significantly traumatic to do it later in life whereas the memory is not stored at several days old. This is portraying it as an either-then-or-now scenario. This is a false dichotomy. It doesn't need to happen at all. Effectively it's the same amount of pain whether done as a baby or an adult. Except adults can get general anesthesia, while newborns can only get local anesthesia. But again it doesn't have to be done at all. It's up to the patient to decide for themselves. And …
/r/MensRights01/01/21 10:22 PM
9

Don't conflate or project your religion with other people's religion. They are free to pick their own religion. And if they want to circumcise themself, they are absolutely free to do so. Absolutely. Because that’s what freedom of religion is. It doesn't matter what your religion commands you to do to other people. You are violating their rights. There are lots of examples here. You cannot stone other people, you cannot kill other people for whatever reason, you cannot marry children, you cannot…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 08:01 PM
13

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. “The number needed to …
/r/RPChristians01/01/21 05:49 PM
7

“Within Islam both male and female circumcision are not mentioned in the central text the Quran, and so this is often taken as an argument that it's not really religious practice. However both practices are mentioned in Hadith, which are the prophetic sayings of Muhammad, and this is a secondary source of Islamic law. So both male and female genital cutting have the same scriptural status within Islam and depending on whether you think that's an important basis for allowing for the practice to c…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:45 PM
4

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:43 PM
3

“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer. A horrendous statistic that does not present medical necessity.
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:42 PM
10

supersede the rights of others to religious freedom One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone's religious rights. Now whose rights are paramount, the parent's or the individual's? It's clear in all precedents and case discussions that an individual’s rights are paramount, over anyone else's inclu…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:40 PM
4

One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone's religious rights. Now whose rights are paramount, the parent's or the individual's? It's clear in all precedents and case discussions that an individual’s rights are paramount, over anyone else's including other people's religions.
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:39 PM
6

You have to separate this out between people. One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone's religious rights.
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:39 PM
8

One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone's religious rights. Now whose rights are paramount, the parent's or the individual's? It's clear in all precedents and case discussions that an individual’s rights are paramount, over anyone else's including other people's religions.
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:37 PM
7

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. “The number needed to …
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:36 PM
7

You can choose for your own body. But the vast amount of circumcisions in the US are done at birth, when there is no medical need. And when there is no medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life.
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:35 PM
8

One person's religious rights end at another person's body. If the patient grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone's religious rights. Now whose rights are paramount, the parent's or the individual's? It's clear in all precedents and case discussions that an individual’s rights are paramount, over anyone else's including other people's religions. it’s a choice It is a…
/r/MensRights01/01/21 05:34 PM
2

This ignores the value of the foreskin itself. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. As for the benefits, from the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been esti…
/r/MensRights31/12/20 09:22 PM
3

Cool, that means you can practice your personal preferences on yourself and circumcise yourself. That doesn't mean that you can circumcise somebody else. They can practice their own personal preference on their own body. That's how freedom of choice works.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 08:52 PM
7

This isn't a harm competition. They are both bad.
/r/MensRights18/12/20 03:44 AM
5

Hello Docb30tn This ignores the value of the foreskin itself. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. There are medical benefits to doing it From the Canadian Paedi…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 03:42 AM
8

I can appreciate the notion, but I'm going to address a few points. For example, most male circumcisions are done in hospitals or sterile environment with clean medical cutting tools Would FGM be acceptable if it was done in a hospital? Or sterile environment? With clean medical cutting tools? No it would not be. Because that is not the standard. only the foreskin is removed from a male circumcision. The equivalent to removing the whole clitoris in males would be removing the whole glans of the …
/r/MensRights18/12/20 03:28 AM
6

Don't conflate day to day activities to be on par with medical surgery. Surgery to remove part of the genitals no less. When it comes to medicine, medical ethics apply. The courts will never rule the parents cannot make these decisions because it would be a legal nightmare. It's not courts really, it's the legislature to pass laws. And many around the world have already passed laws along these lines. The most analogous would be laws against genital alterations of girls without medical need. It w…
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:54 PM
4

It's not iffy at all. It must be medically necessary. “According to a recent international consensus statement, ‘an intervention to alter a bodily state is medically necessary when (a) the bodily state poses a serious, time-sensitive threat to the person’s well-being, typically due to a functional impairment in an associated somatic process, and (b) the intervention, as performed without delay, is the least harmful feasible means of changing the bodily state to one that alleviates the threat. ‘M…
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:47 PM
6

The thing with medical ethics is that the decision always goes to the patient themself. You can think whatever you want and apply that to your own body. Really, you can. But to intervene on someone else's body requires medical necessity.
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:22 PM
8

lost a piece of vestigial skin The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. Especially where Dr. Guest discusses through examples of the ape family how the trend of heav…
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:08 PM
9

it doesn't have a huge impact on your life The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of sub…
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:07 PM
6

Children cannot make informed consent. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substit…
/r/MensRights16/12/20 04:08 PM
6

This ignores the removal of the foreskin itself. Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) And since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications.
/r/MensRights16/12/20 04:07 PM
3

There is a laser circumcision procedure that has less risks and rare complications. This ignores the foreskin itself. It's like cutting off a healthy body part, say an arm, "safely" and then turning around and saying there are no costs to the surgery. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of …
/r/MensRights15/12/20 02:09 AM
9

That ignores the removal of the foreskin itself. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. There's a lot more to this than simply the surgical risks. There are benefi…
/r/MensRights11/12/20 10:13 PM
2

Okay, so let's say that 1% is the actual number of men who get a botched circumcision. (It's probably more than that.) Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) And since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications. Ethicist Brian Earp discusses this idea: “if you assi…
/r/MensRights11/12/20 03:54 AM
4

is universally understood to be a more attractive cock. It is up to the individual to decide for themself what they find attractive. As such they can decide on circumcision for their own body.
/r/MensRights02/12/20 02:11 AM
5

It doesn't hurt and it helps prevent STI's and infections. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be tre…
/r/MensRights02/12/20 02:09 AM
6

You can decide for your own body. But here's some information for you. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 05:30 PM
2

I responded out of courtesy. You have a strange sense of courtesy to attack others! LOL. To ignore what's written and go with ad-hom fallacies! LOL. And best of all the calls for physical confrontation, physical violence, and what was it go to Africa and you won't come back! LOL. All out of courtesy! Do you even hear yourself? LOLOL I know your type will respond back with "You keep responding." I'm having fun pointing out that you say "I've engaged more than enough." and "I've been done with you…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 05:24 PM
3

I've been done with your pointless garbage. Yet you keep coming back LOL! And not with actual rational discussion points. You keep coming back with ad-hominem fallacies lol! And you can’t stop yourself either! Lmao You have an unhealthy obsession with this. And there’s the ad-hominem fallacy! ROFL. You can’t even stop yourself. It’s too much fun to watch. Broken record That’s a funny way to say you’re ignoring what’s written! Lol, and you know it so you attack it. Surprise, that’s your failure n…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 03:27 PM
3

I've engaged more than enough. Your last reply wasn't engagement though lol. It was just attacks and fallacies lol. You know you can't actually engage on the topic, so you descend into attacks. And now you try to cop out lol. Easy to see through. I stopped caring if I heard from you again. It doesn't mean you won another internet argument you can brag to your 'friends' about. You can stop caring. That is not the standard for discussion lol. You have to actually substantiate your points, make you…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 03:25 AM
1

Your level of sanity and level-headedness has dropped so far. Ad-hominum fallacy lol. You can’t engage on the actual topic so you attack the other. Easy to see through. Spouting ad-hominum over and over doesn't make you right or sane. And you don’t like that I see the obvious ad-hominem fallacies, so you try to attack that too lol. Also easy to see through. Surprise, attacking that I call out your fallacies doesn’t absolve you of using an ad-hominem fallacy! Which you did lol. Oh and you snuck i…
/r/MensRights25/11/20 10:54 PM
3

Awww you didn't like that I actually addressed all your points, fallacies, and attacks? And ad-hominem fallacy! Easy to see through. You are all over the place Hey we already covered this! My arguments haven't changed lol. It's incredibly consistent. But you don’t like that so you have to incorrectly insert an accusation of “all over the place” lol. And it's incredibly easy to be consistent when you use basic medical ethics. That the standard to intervene on someone else's body when they are una…
/r/MensRights25/11/20 02:26 AM
1

Part 3 of 3! It can be medically necessary LMAO And an individual instance of medically necessary for an individual patient who has an individual prescription is not an argument to circumcise all newborns or perform routine circumcision when there is no issue. Lol Do I have to add in the context of medicine when the patient cannot decide for them self. What is this? AND done for medical benefits Medical benefits is not medical necessity. And it must be medically necessary to perform on a patient…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 10:06 PM
2

Part 2 of 3 The majority of men do NOT whine about it. LOL I can't stop laughing. You just skipped over the fact that it is a straw man fallacy. You created this argument. I didn't use this as an argument. You did. You created it, you pinned it on me, and you blew it down. It is a an exact straw man fallacy. The small minority who do do NOT dictate the majority. LOL Guess what? Nobody dictates surgery on other people’s bodies! LOL (Do I need to add that we were talking in the context of medicine…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 10:06 PM
2

I wonder if this will necessitate a 2 parter too. *Nope, 3 parts to cover your list! Part 1 of 3 they should shows they don't have good hygiene practices I didn’t mention it in the previous reply because it's obvious, if you want a solution then teach genital basic hygiene lol. And do you really think that Europe and South America and Asia and everywhere else in the world that don't circumcise routinely are overrun at the ER? LOL. they just do basic hygiene. I can't stop laughing. It is a benefi…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 10:06 PM
2

Part 2 of 2 I'm no so obsessed with it like you are. And now you attack the other lol. You have nothing so you just attack. It's so easy to see through. And btw it is fun to go back to read what you’ve ignored lol. You know, that I laid out removing someone else’s arm, and don’t conflate legality with medically necessary or medically ethical, both were ignored. Who says? You? "Medical ethics"? 😆Under what authority do you think your subjective views should be forced on everyone. Lol you're stuck…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 10:05 PM
2

Oh looks like we’re at 2 parts here too!’ Part 1 of 2 Oh, look. Someone who thinks 2 responses with walls of text makes them right. Strawman fallacy. I addressed what you discussed lol. It seems you don’t like that, so you attack the very fact that it is dressed. Notable is that you didn’t mention the weird pasting in of medical codes lol. If you want things short then don’t paste in nonsense that I then address with saying that you’re not making an argument. There's a difference between medical…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 10:05 PM
2

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights24/11/20 02:27 AM
2

Part 2 of 2 I have had to tell an adult uncut male who came in complaining of pain on it only to find he did NOT clean well and had sand and dirt inside the Ah so basic hygiene. Very simple and basic. Which does not present medical necessity to circumcise newborns. It’s pretty easy to cut through it all when you acknowledge that medical necessity is the standard. Don’t worry, I’ll keep it on the ball. Oh so Precious extra bit of skin you people value b/c of 'future sexual pleasure'. This is inte…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 02:25 AM
2

Part 1 of 2 I didn't argue anything for you. When you say that medically necessary circumcisions are rare, you are in fact making my argument for me. Since they are rare, there is no need for them to be done to all newborns when there is no issue. https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/Z00-Z99/Z40-Z53/Z41-/Z41.2 What is all this? Lol. You aren’t making an argument, you’re just pasting in a bunch of stuff from a site. It's still accepted by a good number of people. Insurance companies (depending…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 02:25 AM
5

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. To address your later comment…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 09:14 PM
2

Medical necessity in this is rare. And thus you don’t perform circumcisions unless it is medically necessary. Really you’re just arguing my point for me, thank you. As far as morals and ethics go it's still subjective. Medical ethics is not the same as general ethics or morality. When it comes to medicine and surgery, medical ethics are at play. I have yet to see there be some U.N. Circumcision police making sure every parent who is for it doesn't do it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You ar…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 09:12 PM
9

That's the great thing about medical ethics and personal freedom of choice. People can think and do whatever they want with their own body. But when it comes to someone else's body when they can not decide for themself, the medical ethics are clear. It needs to be medically necessary. Say it with me, medically necessary.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 08:46 PM
17

If you support circumcision, then you are free to circumcise yourself. The standard to decide for someone else is it must be medically necessary, which circumcision is not.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 07:05 PM
3

Some information for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:58 PM
12

They can decide for their own body. But the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substi…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:58 PM
13

I was circumcised and I have no problem with it. You are free to decide that for yourself. However that is not an argument to circumcise somebody else. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:57 PM
1

I edited my response, so in case you didn't see it: Which brings us to that was a poison the well fallacy. Instead of discussing the information, you attempted (and failed) to ignore it by poisoning the source. That's not how science or medicine works. So why hasn't it been banned? Don't conflate it currently being legal with it being medically necessary or medically ethical. The legislative branch of government is different than the medical field. Jews and Muslims One person’s religious rights …
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:55 PM
14

Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis. He includes how Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg was an anti-masturbation crusader who suggested for boys circumcision without anesthetic, and for girls applying carbolic acid to the clitoris. Kello…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:27 PM
2

Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. All of western medicine operates on the same medical ethics. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It is not out of left field position, it’s the entire contemporary field of medical ethics. BTW those statistics were from a review of all medical literature, from around the world. Most of the studies referenced…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:21 PM
2

There are medical benefits in doing it. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibioti…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 03:30 AM
6

That they can decide there was no harm for their body. But that is not a reason to circumcise somebody else. That other person can decide whether or not it's harmful, and decide if they want to circumcise themself, later in life. Also, the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifel…
/r/MensRights22/11/20 10:32 PM
1

You've no right to force your views on another culture. You're so very close. What it is, you have no right to force your views on to another person or onto their body. That individual can choose for their own body, based on their own chosen cultural values. "And to your last sentence, why can’t you let the male decide for himself when he grows up?" - Male babies heal pretty quick from this and have far less chance of complications Ethicist Earp discusses the claim that it’s easier at birth: “Th…
/r/MensRights22/11/20 10:27 PM
14

The botch rate is 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) And since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 02:35 AM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:56 PM
1

There was an episode on this on the Science Vs podcast. See my response here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jrikwv/male_genital_mutilation_circumcision_in/gc67lqa/
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:55 PM
2

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens. "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:50 PM
2

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless. And we can look at the real world results: “The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percent…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:48 PM
2

You can consider yourself as not a victim. But that does not mean you can circumcise other people. As for religion, one person's religious rights ends at another person's body. If someone grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. That does not mean they can circumcise somebody else.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:46 PM
1

Information and sources given here. But you attempted to portray that as a bad thing. So are we looking at sources or not? You can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights11/11/20 02:07 AM
2

I countered the vague handwave to "infections" with actual statistics and normal treatments. And concluded with: These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly each item has a normal treatment or prevention that is both more effective and less invasive. Meanwhile the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.) So yes, I addressed and countered the issue. That is proper discussion. But if you'd like more: The …
/r/MensRights11/11/20 01:57 AM
3

You presented WHO and CDC, so I gave a little more detail about what specifically they say. Simple as that. And then for more information, especially when you said to someone else that you gave them 4 medical bodies, I gave what medical bodies from around the world say. But to go back to your post: specially in Africa You didn't say only in Africa. But now that I gave info from around the world you attempt to portray it as if you did. don't quite know why you had to get this extreme. You did not…
/r/MensRights11/11/20 01:56 AM
3

Medical aspects addressed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jrmcw7/how_to_get_over_feeling_like_a_victim_over/gbvixru/ Let's now go over several national level reviews of circumcision and how not a single medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. We can start with the AAP doesn't recommend circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics says the “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns” The Canadian Pae…
/r/MensRights10/11/20 10:35 PM
4

Higher rates of HIV and some other infections From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it ha…
/r/MensRights10/11/20 10:26 PM
4

Even then it was likely heavily influenced by religion. He includes how Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg was an anti-masturbation crusade. What's notable is that Kellogg was a Seventh Day Adventist. So while it was technically based on this bad idea of medicine, he was likely heavily influenced by his religion.
/r/MGTOW30/10/20 05:24 PM
6

Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis.
/r/MGTOW30/10/20 02:14 AM
3

This is tough since it's a fairly emotional position for your husband. I can only suggest you both watch these presentations. If he doesn't want to, remind him this is a lifelong decision for your son. This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. This presentation "Circ…
/r/MensRights30/10/20 02:11 AM
3

And now you don't even like that I respond, so you attack that too! LOL. Looks like I hit the nail on the head! And this is all you raging against medical information that you literally asked for lol.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 09:26 PM
3

And you don't want me to point out your fallacies, so you attack that too! LOL don't worry it's easy to see through. And it hilarious that you used yet another ad-hominem fallacy to do that! All because you're triggered from basic medical information.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 08:56 PM
3

It's fun to watch people running around in fallacies when they are confronted with basic medical information. In your case, that you literally asked for LMAO. Remember, this is your reaction. Ah another ad hominem fallacy LOL. There you go running around in fallacies again. Too good. All from basic medical information.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 08:09 PM
3

Now you're not even saying anything, an interesting twist on the not able to discuss the topic. Thank you for showing it in a brand new way! LOL. Keep it going, it's fun to watch!
/r/MensRights28/10/20 08:02 PM
3

LOL you can't do the projection when I asked for it, so it's the ad-hominem instead. Easily predictable lol. Now what will you do next? I have my expectation LOL. Keep running around in fallacies though! LOL. It's fun to watch!
/r/MensRights28/10/20 07:56 PM
3

Oh I'm having fun watching you run around in fallacies LOL. And don't worry I won't stop laughing. Can I make requests? Another projection of anger please.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 07:43 PM
3

It must be hard for you to ignore information you literally asked for LOL. And ad-hominem fallacy again LOL. The more you do it the more you show you can't actually discuss anything intelligently. And the more I laugh! LOL.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 07:15 PM
3

And now we likely have projection! I'm laughing LOL, the exact opposite of your strawman. I also like how you're not even trying to discuss the subject anymore. It full on ad-hominem fallacies again LOL.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 04:54 PM
3

This is a public thread and you made a public comment. That is literally how reddit works. Don't worry I'm having a fun time laughing at your fallacies! Here it is: LOLL! And you just made yet another ad-hominem fallacy too LOL. x2 LOL.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 03:44 PM
3

but why do you hate it? https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jip07g/is_the_number_of_men_who_are_circumcised_and/ga7qqau/ A literal question. LOL A. Literal. Question. (and a strawman too, assigning hate when it's not there) That you asked. For information. For people to answer. LLOOLL And you keep going with your ad-hominem fallacy! X2 This is too good! Oh now you want your question answered! LLOOLL. But not your actual question before! LLOLLL. Unfortunately for you it's a strawman fall…
/r/MensRights28/10/20 03:30 PM
3

LMAO now you drop any pretence of not committing attacks and ad-hominen fallacies and go head-long into it. You're full on it now. LOL So. I'll remind you. You literally asked for information. Literally. And when that was given you said: "Man everyone really doesn’t like that I like my penis" and whined about being talked down to. Then complained more about how giving basic medical information was "demeaning". Complete with strawman fallacies throughout. That was a fun recap to show this is your…
/r/MensRights28/10/20 03:21 PM
3

See there it is again lol. You can't discuss and you know it. So you've descended into raging against basic medical information and running around in fallacies. It's so much fun to watch.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 02:26 PM
3

LMAO I literally explained. You can't participate in the actual discussion about medical information LOL. So you attack the person. This is known as an ad-hominem fallacy. It's fun to watch.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 02:03 PM
2

Lol and you continue your attacks. It's the only thing you have left. You don't even feign to have a real discussion anymore. Again may I remind you that this is all your own reaction to basic medical information. It's fun to watch.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 03:51 AM
2

Oh we can discuss the things that you are ignoring. That The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from d…
/r/MensRights28/10/20 03:09 AM
5

You mean it as an attack. You aren't discussing the information, you are attacking the person in order to ignore what's written. Fill it in with your strawmans and it's easy to see through. May I remind you, this is your reaction to basic medical information.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 02:24 AM
3

saying someone doesn’t know what a foreskin Lol I didn't say that. That's a strawman fallacy. And now you turn to attacks. This is all in response to basic medical information.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 11:37 PM
6

I...know what a foreskin is? You said: I don’t experience any loss of sensation or function So it seems that you don't know that The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) You also said: I have a healthy hydrated tip Which I'll now address. The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 10:49 PM
5

I didn't say that, I'm giving you information on what the foreskin is. You might not know firsthand but you can know intellectually.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 10:05 PM
5

I don’t experience any loss of sensation or function so far as I can tell The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 09:05 PM
0

Nothing? ... Multi-paragraph’s LOLOL Are you saying I have nothing? Or that I have lots? LOL You can’t even be consistent LOLOL So which is it? LMAO Besides that we already covered this: I don't know if this fallacy has a name, but it's hilarious. It's the one people use when they can't actually counter, so they say 'You wrote something, and the fact that you wrote it means it's wrong' LOLOL. Quickly followed by the 'If you write again, you're just proving your wrong'. LMAO all in a vain attempt…
/r/MensRights11/10/20 03:50 PM
1

BTW here's your real world that you want to ignore. “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” “circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain…
/r/MensRights10/10/20 09:34 PM
1

Do you ever come out of your basement? LLOOLL Ad-hominem fallacy! Have you ever been touched by a real woman? LLMMMAAAOOO Ad-hominem fallacy x2! I can't stop laughing. You continue to cite studies that have no meaning in the real world. And you offer no counter! No rebuttal! LLLOOLL Just a weak attempt at ignoring everything under the sun!! You wanted harm! And I gave you harm! LLMMMAAAOOO breed like rabbits Sexual pleasure is not the same as ability to orgasm ROFFLLL. That was your whole schtic…
/r/MensRights10/10/20 03:18 AM
0

Wow pathetic. Personal attack lol. I'm guessing I was dead on with: 'You wrote something, and the fact that you wrote it means it's wrong' LOLOL. Quickly followed by the 'If you write again, you're just proving your wrong'. LMAO all in a vain attempt to get the other to stop. Because you can't actually give any counter arguments. So easy to see through. Like I said its inconsequential. Moving the goalpost fallacy LOL. We already covered this: You’re adding qualifiers now. It used to be “No loss …
/r/MensRights10/10/20 02:48 AM
0

LOL that's not law, that's medical ethics. Way to miss again LOL. Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. All of western medicine operates on the same principles. Medical ethics is common throughout western medicine. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. As far as realizing a loss, you’re the one typing out a multi- paragraph response because you know I’m right. I don't know if this fallacy has a name, but it's hilarious. It's the one peopl…
/r/MensRights10/10/20 01:46 AM
1

I can’t be minimizing something that doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist? You’re contradicting yourself. You’re adding qualifiers now. It used to be “No loss in sensitivity“. Now it’s “No crippling loss of sensation.” So which is it? Do you see how you’re sliding? You’re starting to realize the loss. And then say the loss “doesn’t matter”, because it’s not “crippling”. You’re trying to either mitigate it in your own mind, or slowly move the goalposts hoping that I don’t notice. But o…
/r/MensRights10/10/20 01:17 AM
3

religious reasons One person’s religious rights end at another person’s body. If someone wants to circumcise themself for their religion, they are absolutely free to do so. Really. They can. But they are not free to circumcise someone else. If that person grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their own chosen religion, then they are absolute free to do so. Absolutely free. So I see a potential ban as having no infringement on someone’s religious rights. And make piercing the ears of babi…
/r/MensRights09/10/20 02:51 AM
1

Are you kidding me? The foreskin is literally removed with circumcision. That's literally what circumcision is. You may have some remnants left, but the majority is removed. Seriously take a look: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) That shows both the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Proof that you never looked. You can choose to do it on your own body. Really, they can. Get a tattoo, piercings, breast implants, plastic surgery, whatever you want for your own…
/r/MensRights09/10/20 02:28 AM
2

It literally is a debate. You posted your position: I don't see how this is a mens rights issue. It is a choice parents make and I don't see a right or wrong side. It's really not a big deal either way. And you said: That's a whole lot of information that doesn't really address what I said. And then: am not convinced either is right or wrong. But now that you’re stuck and have no counters, you say this isn’t a debate. Let’s see here: You telling people foreskin is sensitive doesn't change anyone…
/r/MensRights09/10/20 01:11 AM
2

although circumcision stats are far from horrible. The standard is not “must be far from horrible”. The standard is medical necessity. "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is…
/r/MensRights09/10/20 01:08 AM
3

You really need to point out the foreskin is the most sensitive part? You asked what the big deal is, and I answered. LOL - anyway you guys are making mountains out of molehills. This seems contradictory to you agreeing that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. our son as he had hypospadias Some medically necessary circumcisions will be done. That’s directly in line with the medical ethics that I posted. But that does not mean all boys should be circumcised. And again, you asked…
/r/MensRights09/10/20 01:05 AM
2

That’s not how statistics works. Some people will get infections. But it’s not common and not a reason to circumcise all newborns.
/r/MensRights09/10/20 01:05 AM
6

The whole point of medical ethics and medical necessity is that there does not need to be a right or wrong. There needs to be medical necessity. Without that, the decision always goes to the patient himself. It's that simple and it's that straightforward. I'm sorry to say you are ignoring that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.) If you want to counter anything that I've presented, you have to actually counter it.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 06:33 PM
7

your entire point is that it makes your weewee feel good And body autonomy. That's why it matters. You answered your own question. stop sinning nigga You can decide for your own body. But you can not decide that for other people. That's the whole point.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 06:16 PM
5

It address perfectly what you asked. It addresses why it's a big deal, right and wrong, and why it's a mens everyone's rights issue.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 06:14 PM
9

They just state there are observational benefits and leave the decision to parents. The issue is the AAP talks extensively and repeatedly about benefits, but never gives the terrible stats: From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often i…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 06:11 PM
8

This is why it matters. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. You can decide to not care for your own body. But you can not decide that for other people, or to ci…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:59 PM
3

"The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated if it happens.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:55 PM
5

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:53 PM
4

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neona…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:51 PM
6

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neona…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:51 PM
6

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neona…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:50 PM
6

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neona…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:50 PM
4

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: “Neona…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:49 PM
6

Addressed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j73jq9/z/g84nkax
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:48 PM
2

Addressed here https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j73jq9/z/g84nkax
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:48 PM
3

For medical information I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 05:41 PM
3

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights06/10/20 07:51 PM
3

And para Para? And as for HIV, did say it’s not a full proof solution... I think you need to consider the medical ethics: The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – u…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 08:58 PM
6

pedicures I'm not interested in comparing the two. Know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. From your other comment: Is circumcision performed as a valid m…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:20 AM
5

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: "Neona…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:15 AM
5

It is not harmful unless the doctor isnt qualified enough. Arguably the complication rate is literally 100%, since the foreskin which is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) And since circumcision is not medically necessary. Only by ignoring the removal of the foreskin can a lower complication rate be claimed. Or complications be limited only to surgical complications. Ethicist Brian Earp discusses this idea as well: “if you assign any value whatsoever to the [foreskin] itself, th…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:06 AM
3

That article references two surveys done in Africa. On one hand we have basic human anatomy, done by objective measurements that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) On the other hand we have two surveys presented in the psychologytoday article. Here is the Kenya survey. First off this was written by Krieger, a well known circumcision proponent who (along with Morris, who he also references) spams pro circumcision articles. And we have the Uganda survey. The follow…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:02 AM
3

The Glan is the most sensitive part, foreskin is the protective cover around it. The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high intracavernosal pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the corpora cavernosa and the female genitalia, preventing corporal trauma during episodes …
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:01 AM
3

Well we don’t have enough data of men losing significant portion of their sensitivity The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) This tissue is lost during circumcision. That is quite literally removing that sensitivity by definition. Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the…
/r/MensRights01/10/20 01:01 AM
7

IMO don't even entertain the discussion about what is equivalent, or which alteration is worse than another alteration. Just don't even go down that path. It's emotional and there's no way to discuss that. Say that this is not a harm competition, his is not an oppression olympics, they are both bad. What I say: I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the fo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/20 12:44 AM
2

The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In…
/r/MensRights15/09/20 06:27 PM
3

I recommend sending her these presentations: This presentation from Dr. Guest goes over the medical aspects. He covers the anatomy of the foreskin, the sensations, the medical aspects and statistics, the evolutionary aspects, cultural bias, and medical ethics. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20 Long but informative. This presentation "Circumcision An Elephant in the Hospital" from Research Assistant Professor Ryan McAllister challenges the normality of circumcision from both a social and medic…
/r/MensRights14/09/20 08:21 PM
3

There's a lot of people that have a vague idea that it's healthier, usually falls under the idea 'it's just what you do'.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 12:12 AM
5

Strong disagree. The biggest reason it's still done is because people think 'that's whats supposed to be done'. That's the default view. Held for the sole reason they aren't exposed to anything else. So bring it up. The more it's simply talked about the more it's questioned. Also challenge the vague idea that it's done for health reasons. Or that there's no effect. Here's some info: From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the ris…
/r/MensRights13/09/20 04:59 PM
4

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. The role of the glans is as a…
/r/MensRights30/08/20 09:05 PM
11

For medical information I recommend reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision One excerpt: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watchin…
/r/MensRights25/08/20 03:21 AM
3

There are a handful of authors that spam pro circumcision articles, notably Morris and Krieger. So unless you pay attention for that you may think the medical community memes that way, when in reality it's just these guys spelling as many papers as they can. It can then work its way into other literature. The study you linked has 5 out of 6 sources used in their discussions coming from Brian Morris, a well-known proponent of mandatory circumcision. The sixth being the AAP. So that's a prime exam…
/r/MensRights23/08/20 10:43 PM
1

"body part" It literally is a body part. Literally. And circumcision literally removes it. Literally. don't "hear men complain about it" I didn't say that. Besides, is this your argument? Because I didn't say that, and it doesn't line up with anything I say either. So, what was that about being dramatically dishonest? You remember your fallacy of association too? How's that for being intellectually dishonest? So, this is still most easily addressed with medical ethics. The standard to intervene …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 02:27 PM
5

That's a fallacy of association. You can't/won't address the topic of circumcision, so you liken it to a different topic instead.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 02:30 AM
5

The foreskin is a body part. Basic medical ethics is that the intervention must be medically necessary to override someones body autonomy. If it's not medically necessary then the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 02:14 AM
5

And your argument for cutting body parts off other people is ???
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 02:03 AM
4

... I want you to think carefully about what you just said. You said they can save money by not cutting off body parts. Both of those are desirable. You literally want both those things. However there is still more to it. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequenc…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/08/20 01:18 AM
6

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." Yes that says before puberty, but it's not going to change drastically. It's very rare.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/20 09:53 PM
2

Keep at it. The more it's talked about the better. I think a big reason people act like that is they're subconsciously shocked that something they took as granted is being challenged.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/20 09:51 PM
4

there is a reason, Like religious beliefs Individuals are free to practice their own chosen religion on their own body. But you are not free to practice your religion on somebody else's body, eg a newborn.
/r/MensRights02/08/20 02:23 PM
2

We just need to ensure medical ethics are applied appropriately, like they are for all other medical surgeries. I.e. stop letting circumcision have a bizarre exemption. BTW yes medical ethics does stop profiting and all those things. You know, the first-do-no-harm principle. It's a serious topic. It's just that it's not applied to circumcision in the US.
/r/MensRights26/07/20 03:34 PM
3

There doesn't need to be an argument against it. Because it's a medical surgery there needs to be an argument for it. Otherwise the default is to always leave the body alone and let the patient decide for themself later in life. That's standard medical ethics. And arguments for circumcision fall flat on their face. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to preven…
/r/MensRights26/07/20 02:50 PM
6

Use this instead: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/MensRights20/07/20 06:03 PM
2

Obviously. You should take this energy on semantics and put it towards intactivism.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 01:16 AM
2

Obviously I meant going forward, the prevalence on newborns. And once it goes below 50% we're in a very good spot culturally.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 12:10 AM
3

You change the culture by changing the prevalence of it.
/r/MensRights19/07/20 11:59 PM
5

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights19/07/20 11:58 PM
2

Isn't circumcision cleaner than not tho? “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. So the statistics ar…
/r/MensRights16/07/20 06:59 PM
2

Why ia it bad? I'm circumsised and I'm thankful I am. A foreskin seems like it would be quite alot of trouble and not worth it. Thank God my parents circumcised me when I was little. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex…
/r/MensRights16/07/20 06:57 PM
0

Your point as it relates to circumcision? Ty for the downvote of course. I prefer to discuss medical information: “The prepuce is an integral, normal part of the external genitalia, that forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis and clitoris.”
/r/MensRights07/07/20 02:58 AM
0

You're free to talk about other items all you want. Really. Go ahead. I don't really care. Make a post and people can vote on it. This entire thread is about circumcision. But take ED, which can be treated with Viagra and avoided with general health. Now circumcision. Can't be treated after it's done, the body part is removed. And circumcision can be avoided by following basic medical ethics and respecting others body autonomy. Simple. It seems our topic is why we should care about circumcision.…
/r/MensRights07/07/20 01:05 AM
1

I think Dr. Guest discusses this in his presentation, but a common idea is that to leave your son intact would be admitting that there's something wrong with your circumcised penis. To admit that you are not experiencing everything. And that is not easy to accept, so it's a mentally easier path to circumcise your son rather than challenging whats happened to you.
/r/MGTOW06/07/20 08:07 PM
1

Simply cultural bias. You may find this interesting: Dr. Guest discusses that the medicalization of circumcision was based on the 1850s belief that masturbation was a significant cause of disease in children. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop children from masturbating by decreasing the sexual pleasure and to take away the gliding mechanism of the penis. It spread somewhat to the anglosphere but fell out of favor. It remains a cultural trend in the US simply for the sake of being a cult…
/r/MGTOW06/07/20 03:11 PM
3

whether foreskin is the biggest Penis Issue facing men That is the fallacy of relative privation again. The fallacy of relative privation rejects an argument by stating the existence of a more important problem. The existence of such a worse issue, the fallacy insists, thereby makes the initial argument irrelevant. This fallacy is also known as the appeal to worse problems or “not as bad as”. https://academy4sc.org/topic/fallacy-of-relative-privation-all-problems-are-relative YOU seem to think t…
/r/MensRights06/07/20 02:56 PM
2

There's lots of posts on this topic. Shut the fuck up about your foreskin, bruh. Also, your fallac symbolisms are dumb. They don't even teach that shit in undergraduate logic course. That's not formal logic; it's just shit from a book about how to be an unproductive asshole. I don't even know what you're trying to say. I could take a guess, but nah it's on you to make yourself clear. Where do you people read this shit? It's almost as if they taught you incorrectly as part of an onging joke about…
/r/MensRights06/07/20 03:52 AM
3

There are far bigger penis problems out there, Fallacy of relative privation. And quite incorrect imo: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the foreskin, how the most sensitive part of the penis is removed by circumcision, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.
/r/MensRights06/07/20 02:13 AM
9

No reasons to do lots of things, we still do it. We also do lots of things to children without consent Don't conflate day to day activities to be on par with medical surgery to remove part of the body. When it comes to medicine and surgery, the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has l…
/r/MensRights05/07/20 04:10 PM
10

anti-male-circumcision thing I see a lot of around here reeaaally isn't the biggest and most important "penis issue" to be talking about. low sex drives, high sex drives, average sex drives, big dicks, tiny dick, averages dicks, somebody else's dick Do you notice your list of items aren't related to circumcision? So involuntary cutting of someone's genitals remains a big issue. The rest is a fallacy of relative privation: The fallacy of relative privation rejects an argument by stating the exist…
/r/MensRights05/07/20 04:06 PM
6

they hate how people bring up circumcision when talking about FGM. Tell them that FGM is already illegal and universally condemned. But circumcision is not only legal, it's often pushed by society and ill-informed medical practitioners.
/r/MensRights04/07/20 04:00 PM
1

Don't know how much was tried beforehand: "The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." Some are necessary, but fixing an actual issue isn't the same as it being done at birth for no reason. You have to be careful comparing damaged uncircumcised sensation with fixed …
/r/MensRights19/06/20 10:37 PM
1

Do you notice I didn't say "said"? I said suggest. Because I keep referring to medical information from around the world. And to medical ethics. Don't you remember you tried to limit medical ethics to a US legal doctrine? Lol. And demanded I stop referring to outside of the US? Lol. Besides that you are still ignoring my decimation of all your links. And you are ignoring that the burden of proof is on you to prove medical necessity. That's the direction medical ethics goes. The ball is in your c…
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:38 PM
3

There are bad ideas of medical benefits. But when you look at the statistics they are terrible. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” An…
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:32 PM
2

Sensitivity isn't a big deal in general. You are free to think that and apply that to your own body. The standard to intervene on somebody else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents …
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:25 PM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He also goes on to medical aspects.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:23 PM
0

You are free to have your opinion and apply that to your own body. But to intervene on somebody else's body, e.g. a newborns, the standard is medical necessity. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. They can apply their own opinion to their own body.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:22 PM
1

You should know that the foreskin itself is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the [penile erectile tissue] and the female genitalia, preventing trauma [from] axial loadin…
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:21 PM
1

There's two numbers, the current percentage of circumcised men, and the percent of newborns being circumcised. The newborn circumcision rate was 58% in 2010. Even 2010 is quite a while ago now, and I expect it has changed quite quickly with the ‘google everything’ mentality. You see a lot (and I mean a lot) of stories online about people learning about it and changing their mind. Before social media it was much harder to be exposed to these kinds of new ideas. And before the mentality of google …
/r/MensRights19/06/20 07:17 PM
2

R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation don’t understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.”
/r/MensRights19/06/20 01:24 AM
1

My mistake: The US does not dictate medicine or medical ethics. That you even suggest this is hilarious. Medicine is a worldwide field, as are medical ethics. But you were equally unclear in your response. You didn't ask for clarification. Given the response it seemed you were saying the US does practice medicine. You also resorted to an ad hominem attack (twice lol) instead of actually asking for clarification, so I had and still have no issue calling it out. And after that, the rest was still …
/r/MensRights18/06/20 04:05 PM
1

Lol I quoted exactly what you said and changed US to World. Agreed it made little sense. You said: The US does not medicine? My response: The World does not medicine? Lol. So you're basically saying that what you wrote is nonsensical. So you can answer your own question of what drug you were on. The rest is pretty clear. It seems you have graduated from ignoring what's said to attacking it instead. So the ball remains in your court. It's on you to prove, and I do mean prove, medical necessity. T…
/r/MensRights18/06/20 02:28 AM
1

The World does not medicine? Lol. And you want me to point out literally where you said to stop bringing up outside of the U.S? Oh and you go to an ad-hominem fallacy. Let's see what you missed. You didn't address of acknowledge anything on STIs/HIV. You know, where I addressed the medicine. Or that STIs/HIV is not relevant to newborns or children at all. Hey that matches your old habit of not acknowledging or addressing everything I posted on your links too. So my call out on that works here to…
/r/MensRights18/06/20 01:24 AM
1

Circumcisions are very reasonable , they reduce risk of STI’s. We literally just covered this. I see we need even more detail. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC. A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless. And that’s accepting the data at face value. The concept is under att…
/r/MensRights17/06/20 02:52 PM
1

Ah the good old limit to the US. Guess we should give up penicillin too, and everything else invented outside of the US. The US does not medicine or medical ethics. That you even suggest this is hilarious. Medicine is a worldwide field, as are medical ethics. And I don’t need links This is fascinating since you were the one dumping links. Since you're splitting up the convo, I'll continue in the next.
/r/MensRights17/06/20 02:38 PM
1

I like how you don't include the link. After dumping links, you now dump quotes without the source. “Medical necessity is a United States legal doctrine, related to activities which may be justified as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate, based on evidence-based clinical standards of care.” You do understand that medical ethics is not limited to the United States? Lol. And that the United States does not dictate medical ethics to the entire world? Lol. So lol you are attempting to apply a …
/r/MensRights15/06/20 09:48 PM
6

“There are many medical ethicists who believe that forced infant circumcision violates some of the core principles of medical ethics. Primum non nocere is a concept of first do no harm. It’s a bit more complicated than it sounds. It says that if there is pathology present, the physician must weigh the potential for harm of doing the surgery against the potential for harm of not doing the surgery. Circumcision fails this ethical test. First, there is no pathology present. The foreskin is not a di…
/r/MensRights14/06/20 09:57 PM
2

Didn't realize he deleted his account. Quite the emotional guy.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 07:39 PM
0

Circumcisions are reasonable. Word inflation. Did you even notice that yourself? Instead of arguing that it's medically necessary, you went on a hiking trip and are now arguing that it's reasonable. But reasonable is not the standard, necessity is. That's why they say necessary. They don't say the word reasonable. They say the word necessary. Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong conseq…
/r/MensRights14/06/20 03:34 PM
3

This doesn't need to be a harm competition. Comparisons to fgm aren't necessary at all, it just makes people defensive. Circumcision is bad all on its own and you can argue it from there. What you're asking for doesn't exist. Here's some info for you: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) You can poke around: www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org www.nocirc.org
/r/AntiFeminists11/06/20 03:02 PM
1

I’m making my own argument just fine. You are just fucking stupid. Seeing that you just resorted to an attack, your argument is terrible lol. Your parents own you. Medical ethics are quite clear. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a ch…
/r/MensRights11/06/20 02:49 PM
0

LMAO at his point I'm just gonna call you out. You've been googling your position from the start and spam dumping links. I've dissected them all. You're not even making your own arguments, or participating in discussion, you're just relying on spam dumping and conveniently ignoring my addressals and dissections of them. It's so obvious. You're not even in this discussion. I even gave you a list of what we've gone over a couple replies ago lol and it was ignored. May I remind you that the burden …
/r/MensRights11/06/20 03:39 AM
1

So this was written by Brian Morris. Did you notice the previous study critique that you linked that tried to say 'no evidence' was also Brian Morris? Do you notice a trend with Brian Morris? He is known to spam pro-circumcision articles. This has been noted in the medical community. I didn't include it, but Frisch (the previous original author) also noted that in his refutation: “Like in critical letters to the editor following other recent studies that failed to support their agenda, Morris et…
/r/MensRights10/06/20 03:26 PM
1

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless. "The foreskin can b…
/r/MensRights09/06/20 01:39 AM
1

For medical information I recommend you and them reading the Canadian Paediatric Society’s paper. It has the actual stats (table 1) on the talking points. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision They key points on the commonly cited health benefits. “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. “The number needed to [circumcise] …
/r/MensRights09/06/20 01:37 AM
1

And I literally provided that evidence. Literally. But you literally did not provide evidence. Literally. You presented a study critique on one study. Looking back, it wasn't even absence of evidence even though it was worded that way, it was only a critique on an actual study. And of course I gave the original authors refutation of his points. You have this mixed up. I gave evidence, you did not. And if you look at my other replies Lol I'm not tracking down your other replies and constructing y…
/r/MensRights09/06/20 01:36 AM
1

I like how you dropped all claims of health benefits. Let's not forget all that. And how you skipped over the medical ethics. Which is key. However, one 2012 study found that there was not enough scientific evidence in some previous research to suggest that circumcision affects sexual function. The study concluded that circumcision has no negative long-term impact on sexual function. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Period. That's something fundamental about science th…
/r/MensRights08/06/20 03:51 PM
2

And of course after all that backfiring, you're back to attacking the very existence of a discussion. LLLMMMMMFFFFAAAAAOOOOO
/r/MensRights08/06/20 02:47 PM
2

investment backfired And projection of your own backfiring! LLLOOOLLLL After all your demands for eVidENcE oF aTtAcKS! LLLLMMMMFFFAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
/r/MensRights08/06/20 02:46 AM
2

crying And here's projection of your emotions! I'm laughing my ass off at you running into yourself!! LLLMMMFFAAOOO You completely trip over yourself with your emotions! RRRRRROOOOOOFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLL
/r/MensRights08/06/20 02:25 AM
2

neckbeard Tell me more about how you don't insult LOL. And after all your requests for eViDeNcE LLLLMMMMFFFFAAAAOOOOOO LLMMFFFFAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
/r/MensRights08/06/20 02:14 AM
2

You're emotionally invested and can't stand not having anything intelligent to say. LOL
/r/MensRights08/06/20 02:01 AM
2

All emotion and no intellectual component. Otherwise you'd actually discuss! LLMMFAAOO
/r/MensRights08/06/20 01:49 AM
2

And the longer you go without actually discussing, the more hilarious it is to watch LMFAOOOO.
/r/MensRights08/06/20 01:39 AM
2

You have such poor emotional control that all you can do is attack LOL.
/r/MensRights08/06/20 01:26 AM
2

You can’t even enter the conversation anymore and you know it LMFAOOO So you just continue flailing and emotionally lashing out LMFAOOO.
/r/MensRights08/06/20 01:19 AM
2

Imho it's too emotional for them if they hear comparisons. So don't bother comparing them. Say it's not a harm competition, not an oppression olympics, there's no competition for which is worse. Then go on to explain all the reasons why circumcision is bad all on its own. And how body autonomy is crucial. And how medical necessity is required.
/r/MensRights08/06/20 01:13 AM
1

Yes there will be some remnants of your foreskin, as seen on this diagram. But, first you ignore a study showing that a large amount of sensitive tissue is removed. And claimed no effect on sex. Then second you ignore a study showing effect on sex with comparison between uncircumcised and circumcised, with your personal anecdote without comparison. notably HIV. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average …
/r/MensRights07/06/20 09:25 PM
1

“Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” “circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to …
/r/MensRights07/06/20 02:15 PM
2

Is it too long for you to read? LMFAOOO You better lash out at the act of reading!! LMFAOOOOOOOOO I feel sorry for your teachers that had to read your 'essays'. LOL
/r/MensRights07/06/20 02:15 PM
3

Well there's plenty of stuff you can say but I can't provide you with too much.
/r/MensRights07/06/20 03:20 AM
2

LMFAOOO Do you really think your tactic is going to work? LMFAOO It’s just making me laugh even harder at your emotions, hypocrisy, and inability to actually discuss the topic. LMFAOOO You’re so desperate LOLOL.
/r/MensRights07/06/20 03:06 AM
2

LMFAOOO Yup you can't even see your literal hypocrisy that you are literally replying. But of course even worse since you're not even in the conversation. That means, it's just your emotions controlling you! LOLOL.
/r/MensRights07/06/20 02:33 AM
2

LMFAO do you even listen to yourself? You're so invested that you literally stalked my account LMFAOOOO. You. LOLOLOL. Your hypocrisy is off the charts, but you have to lash out with all your emotions. LMFAO.
/r/MensRights07/06/20 01:50 AM
3

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) That's not a possibility, it's a fact. And have you ever read a scientific paper, that's common talk. Actually you should just watch the presentation.
/r/MensRights07/06/20 01:42 AM
4

I have no politics, just medical information on circumcision. It seems obvious to me you are looking for something, anything, to disregard that information and medical ethics. And when you could not get it, you created a strawman. You are free to discuss other subjects with other people on other threads. I am here to discuss circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 05:14 PM
3

If you'd like to apply medical ethics to that topic, you are free to. I am here to discuss circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 05:05 PM
3

informed medical remedy The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well: Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only t…
/r/MensRights06/06/20 04:18 PM
3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515318579 This survey was done only two years after circumcision. It was tacked on to the end of an HIV study. So the people were pressured into getting a circumcision for HIV benefits and then asked if there was a detriment. Surely you see the conflict of 1) being pressured to undergo a procedure for health benefits (more on that later), and then being asked if there’s downsides. 2) Even without the pressure, there’s a psychological …
/r/MensRights06/06/20 04:13 PM
3

Your links seem to be search queries rather than individual studies. If you want comments on a specific paper, please link it. In the meantime, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexu…
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:56 PM
2

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:39 PM
5

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) If you want to be informed, I suggest this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He also goes on to medical aspects.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:34 PM
3

Tell them that arguably literally 100% of circumcisions are botched. Because it removes a large amount of highly sensitive tissue.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:30 PM
1

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He also goes on to medical aspects.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:18 PM
3

I'm cut, head is very sensitive The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He also goes on to medical aspects.
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:16 PM
3

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/MensRights06/06/20 01:08 PM
2

See you’re so outside of the conversation that all you can do is attack the existence of it LMFAOOO. That was a whole sentence, are you gonna call that an essay now? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO I feel sorry for your teachers LOLOL. *You forgot your emojis!
/r/MensRights05/06/20 01:17 PM
2

You’re not even in this conversation anymore LOL You’re outside it having a tantrum and making nonsensical attacks LMFAO I can’t stop laughing.
/r/MensRights05/06/20 02:08 AM
2

LOLOL More tantrums! You can't discuss so you attack LMFAOOOO! You let your emotions completely control you LMFAOOOO!
/r/MensRights04/06/20 02:57 PM
2

I’ve never seen such investment Cries the guy that was literally stalking! Literally spending time going out of his way to stalk! LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOLOL! let's see it again: with others aswell LMFAOOOOOOO You're comedy gold! LMFAOOOOOOOO
/r/MensRights04/06/20 01:07 AM
2

And of course I didn't call out your instant reply last time LMFAOOOOOOOO The very thing you attacked LMFAAOOO. Keep exposing your hypocrisy! You couldn't write this! LMFAOOOOOO
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:16 PM
2

LMFAOOOO! We just covered how when you don't like something you attack it! LMFAOOOOOO. You couldn't even write a comedy show as good as you! LMFAOOOOO!
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:08 PM
2

LMFAOO Aww are you still throwing a temper tantrum, lashing out in anger LMFAOO. Bwahahah you haven't said essaaayy in awhile. Put that in with some more emojis LMFAOOOOO. And then attack It! LMFAOOOOO! with others aswell LMFAAOOOOO. I'm still laughing my ass off at your effffooorrrttttttt LMFFFAAAOOOOO
/r/MensRights03/06/20 01:03 PM
2

LMFAOO We already covered this. It's like you're in second grade throwing a temper tantrum LMFAOO. Quick distract from the actual investment in stalking: with others aswell LMFAAOOOOO. I still can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 04:28 AM
2

LMFAOO Anything you don't like you attack LOL It's like you're in second grade trying to distract people LMFAOOOO. Don't forget your investment with stalking: with others aswell LMFAAOOOOOOOO. I seriously can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 04:17 AM
2

Keep running away from yourself LMFAOOOOOO! Here it is again: with others aswell I love how you don't even acknowledge your own actions anymore! LMFFFAAAAOOOO.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 04:06 AM
2

really invested LMFAOOOOO When you're the one triggered and stalking LOLOL. Let's not forget: with others aswell Enough said LLLMMMMFAAAAOO I can't stop laughing.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 03:55 AM
2

Ohh that's quite the essayyyyy LOL. Yea you did expose yourself LLMMFAOOO. And what did you find? Literal. Consistency. LMMFAOOOOO. And you can't backtrack LOLOL. So you're back to your only tactic, Strawman and Attack LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
/r/MensRights03/06/20 03:41 AM
2

with others aswell You’re triggered so bad from the most basic medical ethics that I live rent free in your head lmao! You literally stalk my account when you’re stumped. After all your talk about eeeefffooorrrttttttt LLMMMFFFAAOOOO.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 03:28 AM
2

LMFAOOO You found Literal. Consistency. LOLLLOOLLL with others aswell And what was all your stuff about ‘effort’? LMAO. You are literally going out of your way to stalk LMAO! I’m just replying to my inbox with you, but you are literally stalking LMFAOOOOOO. You’re triggered so hard LOL. I live rent free in your head LMFAOOO.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 03:24 AM
2

with others aswell All from simple medical ethics on circumcision! That you can't address! ROFL! So you stalk and you found, wait for it, literal consistency! LMFAOOOOO. Literal. Consistency. Of. Staying. On. Topic. LOL. Oh man I'm laughing so hard LOLOL. I seriously can’t stop laughing. You’re a complete comedy show! Oh my throat is dry from laughing so hard.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 03:09 AM
2

with others aswell And you said, what was it, your life doesn’t revolve around this. But you go stalking!! LMAO. You’re walking all over yourself! I can’t stop laughing, you're a freaking comedy show LMFAOOOOO
/r/MensRights03/06/20 02:52 AM
2

with others aswell Wait, are you admitting that you stalked my account? ROFL! You're that triggered by simple medical ethics?? Lmao this keeps getting better! I can't stop laughing! LMFAOOOOO.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 02:39 AM
2

Oh wow quite the essay! Lmao. Your teachers and profs must be something to accept your version of an 'essay' lmao. Besides that you just admitted that 1) you literally can't stay on the literal topic of the thread lmao. And of course 2) your reliance on a complete strawman fallacy (again) lmao. Oh and 3) your reliance on attacks x2 lol. I'm just gonna call them what they are: ad hominem fallacy! Keep the comedy show up, I need a good laugh.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 01:37 AM
4

It's actually good that she's researching it, but she needs to get better information. Give her this: I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight. Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts. Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.". Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would nee…
/r/MensRights01/06/20 04:51 PM
2

Sounds like you're not making your way through them, so allow me to paste: When I refused to switch topics, you couldn’t handle it so you went for attacks instead lol.
/r/MensRights01/06/20 01:18 AM
2

That's why you keep attacking it lmao. You don't want it pointed out that you have no actual argument, so you attack me pointing it out in the vain hope that I will stop. I won't because it's so easy to see through lmao. When I refused to switch topics, you couldn’t handle it so you went for attacks instead lol. Keep up the comedy show! Don't forget your emojis instead of english words! Lol.
/r/MensRights31/05/20 01:13 PM
2

Dude you essentially just admitted to only wanting to waste the others time lol. So I’m just having fun calling out your so-called debate strategies. It’s fun to watch people squirm when they can’t actually engage on the literal topic of the thread. apllication You were saying something about english? lol. Don't forget your emojis!
/r/MensRights31/05/20 01:30 AM
2

Lmao there it is again. You have nothing to actually say, so you attack. Specifically here you attack that I'm calling you out lmao. Seems like I hit the nail on the head Besides that you are just confirming that you are attempting to waste the others time. But don't worry, it's not working. It takes no time, it's so easy to see through, and it's so much fun to call you out. In case you haven't realized, I'm enjoying watching you run around. Don't forget to use your emojis! Lmao.
/r/MensRights31/05/20 01:12 AM
2

Ah lmao see you can't actually discuss, so you attack again lmao. Sorry you can't see the clear and mocking of your debate strategy. (I could talk about how I didn't use double quotation marks but instead use single quotation marks to note the obvious mocking, but something tells me that again you're not here for an actual conversation lol.) So you're back to your attacks again! Lmao. Notice how you didn't address how you wanted to switch topics lol. And your subsequent whining lol. You can't sa…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 11:29 PM
4

Then it's factually incorrect that it doesn't hinder you. There is more to sex than ability to orgasm. You didn't elaborate o what what you meant by helps, but in case there's an idea that it helps you last longer: R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the “nerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When they’re cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldn’t stand more sensation do…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 09:14 PM
4

it doesn't hindering me, and in some cases helps, We have information on this as well, even if you are not able to personally experience it: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the possibility of decreased sexual …
/r/MensRights30/05/20 09:03 PM
4

This is the point of medical ethics. You can have your opinion and apply that to your own body. To intervene on somebody else's body requires medical necessity. If there is no medical necessity then the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. They can apply their own opinion to their own body.
/r/MensRights30/05/20 08:44 PM
4

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics. "The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens. These are terrible statistics and don't present a reason to c…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 02:41 PM
2

Funny when you couldn’t discuss the literal topic of the thread you went ‘buT wHaT aBOuT aNoTheR tOpIC?!’ lmao. Quickly followed by 'You won't switch to other topics? Whaaaa'. So when you couldn't discuss the literal topic of the thread and realized I wouldn't let you switch topics, all you were left with was personal attacks LMAO. And you went off on them. I can't stop laughing. You're a comedy show.
/r/MensRights30/05/20 02:37 PM
2

See another attack lmao. Surely you mean a thesaurus though lmao. You didn't want to actually debate before, now you're whining that people won't 'give evidence' lmao.
/r/MensRights29/05/20 01:13 AM
14

You should take it a step forward. Say that it's medically unethical to do unless it's actually medically necessary. Sad state of affairs when you have to educate people in healthcare.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/05/20 01:05 AM
2

Let's see, now you attack me calling you out. Because you don't like being called out lmao. Are you upset your trolling isn't working? You better use more emojis lmao.
/r/MensRights28/05/20 01:58 AM
2

Yes you have multiple layers of trolling. I call you on troll attack and that doesn't work, and now you have troll attempts to waste other people's time and I call that off to lmao. It's so much fun to call you out. Wonder what I can call you out on next.
/r/MensRights28/05/20 01:51 AM
2

Trolling was before, now you're trying to waste other's time. Which is a form of trolling all on it's own of course. I'm just having fun calling you out on it all lol.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 03:22 AM
2

It’s hilarious though that you want others to be civilized while you attack and troll lol.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 02:00 AM
6

Point out: 1) This does not need to be a harm competition. They don't need to be compared. 2) FGM is illegal and universally condemned in the West. Not only is circumcision legal, it's even pushed. 3) And anatomy always helps: The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/05/20 02:45 PM
2

Lol you lost your chance at a civilized discussion when you just went for attacks instead.
/r/MensRights26/05/20 02:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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