TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

jimmi-jones Archive

View 4 posts and 640 comments by jimmi-jones on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
17

I have seen many claims that FGM and non therapeutic circumcision of male infants are simply not comparable yet those making the claim are not even able to correctly define FGM. There are 4 main types of FGM: type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (the lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (the larger outer lips) type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing the vaginal …
/r/MensRights28/01/20 01:37 AM
1

It certainly seems that way when female genitals are protected but male genital can be altered by parents for any reason including ignorance.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 12:28 AM
32

Agree, women are just as capable of being canon fodder as males.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 09:56 AM
3

That’s great given the likes of Morris and Krieger were pushing so hard with their bs public health measure basically claiming the need for universal circumcision of all infant males.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 09:19 AM
1

Something interesting for you to consider concerning the PEPFAR plan 2020 (as current as you can get). This is the plan to combat epidemics such as HIV that exists in the likes of deeply impoverished Africa. Page 186 “No infant circumcision activities will be supported in COP20. Health care providers should strive to postpone non-emergency invasive and irreversible interventions until the child is sufficiently mature to provide informed consent” https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/C…
/r/MensRights26/01/20 09:02 AM
6

Says the same thing in children’s rights conventions especially about those who do it for religious reasons. Just remember that insisting or demanding a child is born into religious membership is now considered a human rights violation.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 07:05 AM
1

I’m from New Zealand and post ww2 the circumcision rate was 95% and considered the highest in all English speaking countries, now it is 5%. Change is possible we are living proof of that and (spoiler) the sky didn’t fall in during the 70 years of decline and abandonment.
/r/MensRights24/01/20 10:57 AM
2

They don't fit with the analysis undertaken by those who govern pedicatric care. One of the famous references you provided is and has been invalid for years making your assessment completely invalid and without credibility. Trying to make an argument on expired and invalid detail when your opponent knows it’s invalid results in you losing every time because that is fraudulent and incompetent analysis. If I provide a link to supporting detail I always make sure it is both relevant and current in …
/r/MensRights23/01/20 01:04 AM
2

Instead of responding to the sources you have provided individually which would be lengthy I will start with a couple of statements. The focus of my argument is that circumcision as a preventative measure applied to infants and children is completely unessential from a health or medical perspective and unnecessarily introduces the potential for risks and complications. All of the organisations you have referenced with the exception of the AAP do not cater or represent pedicatric care. Their rese…
/r/MensRights23/01/20 12:49 AM
1

I’m not American, however if we examine the reasons as to why so many in the US still do it, based upon the discussions I have had many have “no idea as to why” but they continue do it anyway simply out of fear and ignorance. They know it’s not a requirement of Christianity but it is another potential excuse to use given they have no reason to do it in the first place. I’ve heard christians state they do it out of respect to those who follow the Old Testament. I think it is a combination of some…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 10:06 PM
4

The information I have provided is actually critical because it clearly details the harms. Given the basis of your argument is that harm does not even occur, I can easily dispel that scientifically through those at the very height of their disciplines in medicine. The American Urology Association represents the practitioners that repair the damage, they have no hesitation in detailing what can go wrong, same with the newborn and pain medicine specialists. Happy to talk benefits because most of t…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 10:09 AM
3

Nothing else to say?
/r/MensRights22/01/20 09:16 AM
9

Christians are not required to do it so zero need or concern for most of them.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 08:33 AM
3

It has only been 40 years since we realised that pain caused to the neonate comes with impacts to health, at which time reluctantly the use of analgesics and pain relief was introduced. All circumcisions performed prior to that time were done with zero pain relief. From the "Committee on fetus and newborn and Section on anaesthesiology and pain medication" "exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.”…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 08:30 AM
24

If they don't want it their strength of resolve speaks other wise.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 08:07 AM
6

Pediatic societies such as the AAP, RACP give guidance to relevant medical practitioners concerning healthcare for the children in their given region. They review all available information and develop policy and recommendation based upon what is actually relevant. They all in policy state that circumcision of male children is not recommended because the so called benefits are simply either not relevant or not great enough. I could easily find a doctor who would recommend it especially if I was p…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 07:46 AM
41

It’s legal because when attempts are made to make it illegal the religious scream bigotry.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 07:03 AM
5

No pediatric society on earth recommends you circumcise your male children from a health perspective because the claimed benefits are either completely irrelevant to children or so negligible they don’t justify the risks that result from doing it. In addition when adult males consider potential benefits for themselves as adults they also don’t see the value and don’t seek circumcision for themselves. All simply from a medical and health perspective without even delving into unethical and immoral…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 05:36 AM
10

What a load of complete horse shit, basically an incoherent ramble.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 05:11 AM
10

If people do know they are less likely to inflict it upon their own children.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 02:16 AM
10

I feel it is likely physiological harm does or can certainly equate to psychological problems. In terms of the physiological "Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update," where they stated - “exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.” They also indicated that in relation to neonate circumcision effective pain management was multiple doses of sucrose which can affect neuro…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 01:10 AM
5

I feel that being left with the singular choice of not doing it to your own children is worthy of complaint but understand it is not your intention to necessarily invalidate that right. In terms of a lack of education on the part of the parents as defence I feel that is dubious. Pediatric policy has not recommended you circumcise your child for 70 years now because the evidence of benefit has never supported it. Key motivations seem to be superficialities such as being like everyone else, not be…
/r/MensRights21/01/20 06:54 AM
1

Do you think countries have tried to ban the practice before? The answer is yes, Germany, Sweden, Greenland, Iceland, Finland at one time about five years ago the EU as a whole. Why the fuck were they not successful in banning it? The answer is obvious because no one but the religious does it there. The US has sold its soul to the religious zealots. A good number of US law makers do it for religious reasons themselves so I hold little hope for the US. That does not mean the rest of us cannot rid…
/r/MensRights19/01/20 10:19 PM
2

We are changing that to "equal protection for all children".
/r/MensRights19/01/20 10:32 AM
2

What do you think will actually work to resolve this matter because where I am from the practice declined 95% without concern for the wrath of God. Do you have anything constructive that might help restrict the practice.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 10:24 AM
2

So what changes and measures do you think have occurred and being developed to address this hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights19/01/20 09:53 AM
7

When attempts have been made to restrict the practice and prevent it being forced upon children it is “religious” opposition that prevents it not some ignorant moron saying it looks nicer. Why has this practice not been restricted yet? Religion
/r/MensRights19/01/20 04:59 AM
3

Just realised I had given this detail to you previously. Post your query on the NZ sub, have no doubt the support would be unanimous.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 01:16 AM
3

If you have not done so already familiarise yourself with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. NZ has ratified this convention so you are able to hold the government to account concerning the articles that would prevent non therapeutic circumcision of male children. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf Given the current neonate circumcision rate overall is around 5% and those who do so for religious reasons represent less than 1% of population, if thi…
/r/MensRights19/01/20 01:08 AM
8

The AAP released FGM policy that basically said the lesser forms of what we now consider FGM should be made permissible as they were less invasive than male infant circumcision. That policy was quickly superseded due to public outcry with little consideration to the males the policy claimed were subjected to a more invasive procedure.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 12:55 AM
6

Religion
/r/MensRights19/01/20 12:50 AM
3

Definitely under 10% in NZ I would say in the vicinity of 5%. Hasn’t been done in public hospitals or had cost covered for decades now. Even over 30 years ago in all the classes I was in there was only ever 1-2 circumcised and in some classes none.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 12:49 AM
10

Then it needs to be made known that their ambition of equality is for nothing.
/r/MensRights16/01/20 09:36 AM
7

That would be a very great day,
/r/MensRights16/01/20 04:22 AM
15

It would be a good way to test the validity of the amendment.
/r/MensRights16/01/20 03:54 AM
21

So the genital integrity rights afforded to female infants and children can now be extended to male infants and children?
/r/MensRights16/01/20 03:39 AM
-1

It certainly seems that way doesn’t it. Not sure what research would even be required certainly concerning complications because they occur and no one can really dispute that.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 05:43 AM
3

Are you solely after specific accounts or studies of physical harms that can result from circumcision or human rights arguments against the practice as well?
/r/MensRights14/01/20 05:34 AM
2

Not relevant to most that have the capacity to post comments on reddit because circumcision as an hiv prevention method is a deeply flawed half measure at best. This is why virtually all claims of benefit are also followed by statement that normal protective measures such as condoms must be used at all times anyway. Essentially circumcision is only beneficial in preventing HIV if applied to humans that resemble docile cattle.
/r/MensRights13/01/20 09:57 PM
2

The majority of that is not even relevant to children and is for adults to consider for themselves. The mayo clinic, WHO or CDC all of the information they release is considered by each regional pediatric society in terms of actual relevance to the children in their area of responsibility. All of them conclude that it is not relevant. In order for something to be considered a benefit the potential for it to even be realised must be present. What right do I have to dictate to the religious? It is…
/r/MensRights13/01/20 03:44 AM
2

Just because you might be the parent of the child does not give you the freedom to do as you please. As I stated previously the UNCRC ratified by 194 countries stipulates what rights must be afforded to “all” children as a minimum. Even in the case of religion it states the following “Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to ado…
/r/MensRights13/01/20 03:04 AM
3

Nice to see you again
/r/MensRights13/01/20 01:42 AM
4

It is available at the moment however that option is being heavily scrutinised by many nations some of which have moved to restrict the practice. One of the core understandings driving the need for restriction is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which as been ratified by 194 countries. Religion is the only reason it is still an option and that matter is also being addressed. You do understand that there are more nations that don’t circumcise than do? Medical ailme…
/r/MensRights13/01/20 01:40 AM
6

The practice is not recommended by any pediatric society on earth because the grand majority of males will never need circumcision. Risk of needing circumcision is only relevant to those who actually need it so the other 99.7% are placed at risk for no reason other than ignorance. Many countries are in the process of making it illegal to do it just as they did for females. The practice is being abandoned because people understand it is unethical
/r/MensRights13/01/20 12:45 AM
5

Parents do not make all decisions for their children until 18. Have you ever heard of human rights? Children have special rights specifically for children to protect them from ignorant people like you. Circumcision comes with the potential for risks and complications, given most are done without any medical need by doing it you are placing your child at unnecessary risk. The child carries the burden of those risks not the parent If we stfu about it people like you would still be doing the same t…
/r/MensRights12/01/20 10:56 PM
8

One bond it does damage is the bond between parents and child.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 07:22 AM
7

If you visit subs where adults give an account of their circumcision experience one of the most common questions is “when will the unbearable sensitivity of the glands stop”. The answer is 2-4 weeks the glands will become dry and sensitivity will diminish to a dull sensation. The glands did not become more sensitive because of circumcision it became constantly exposed. That is a loss of sensitivity in addition to the obvious fact that you know longer feel any sensation from the foreskin removed.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 07:20 AM
5

It’s one of the reasons why circumcision is a shitty thing to do to a child.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 07:03 AM
6

From the “American Urology Association” “There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction.” “The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.”
/r/MensRights12/01/20 03:33 AM
3

Based upon the statistics only half in India doing it are Muslim. In most civil countries subjecting children to this practice without medical necessity is frowned upon and likely to become illegal eventually regardless of being religious or not.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 11:32 PM
5

Circumcision in India occurs at a rate of less than 20% and the percentage that would circumcise for religious reasons accounts for at least half of them Potential medical necessity is in the vicinity of 0.4-0.2% I would estimate between 15 and 19.6% of your population do so out of ignorance Yes it does happen however in most ME countries and some US states it is over 90%.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 12:34 PM
3

I don’t live in a shithole so what does that have to do with my saying that circumcision is in decline?
/r/MensRights10/01/20 12:23 PM
1

What made you draw the conclusion that I will never understand?
/r/MensRights10/01/20 12:19 PM
7

This practice is in decline and abandoned for many of the reasons you have highlighted. It is only a matter of time until male children are protected. That’s what I want parents to know.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 12:14 PM
6

That is remarkable because many pro circumcision people think it can only be done to newborns. All your account does is confirm that choosing to do it as an adult is no big deal because it’s not. Your dick your choice and if anything goes wrong that’s your own fault.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 10:17 AM
14

From the American Urology Association “There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction.” “The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.” The majority of circumcisions performed are wit…
/r/MensRights10/01/20 03:07 AM
7

I can see the wet stain on the stone. Nice
/r/MensRights09/01/20 11:01 AM
3

Yes
/r/MensRights09/01/20 08:33 AM
83

Decisions made by the elite are not representative of a gender or the common person. Claiming that men cannot complain about being drafted because men placed them in the position is next level dumb fuckery.
/r/MensRights06/01/20 04:25 AM
3

Okay my apologies for coming across in a manner that showed a lack of understanding in terms of your motivations. Having said that you did state “even better if pain relief can be applied” so would say you didn’t exactly portray your query in the same way you just offered clarification. In addition I stated that your way of thinking is an ignorant remnant which it is. Happy to provide any further clarification not already afforded by others.
/r/MensRights06/01/20 02:15 AM
3

I will address one of the other points you raised as well being the claim that a newborn is non sentient therefore you can inflict as much pain as you like “they won’t remember it”. Prior to the 1980’s the whole if you can’t remember it fiasco was broadly accepted by medical community therefore virtually all over the age of 40 circumcised at birth received zero pain relief. During the 1980’s it was realised that pain inflicted to a newborn actually damaged them and from that time pain relief was…
/r/MensRights05/01/20 09:39 PM
7

From the American Urology Association “There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction.” “The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.” In addition to the medical perspective above th…
/r/MensRights05/01/20 06:04 AM
3

In actual fact many countries opened frontline combat roles to women some time ago, even Australia did so in 2013. It has occurred largely in the last decade during which wartime engagement has been limited however women have been deemed by many as being as effective as men on the front. The mandatory as opposed to the voluntary is what I was talking about.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:55 AM
3

No shit I hadn’t realised.....
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:46 AM
1

Correct that is absolutely the case however as I said given the demand for equality that “should” not be the case. The countries I mentioned that do conscript women regardless of what form that takes is a step in the right direction. My preference would be that neither my sons or daughters suffer wartime effort.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:46 AM
3

Mandatory military training for youth and conscription during wartime effort are two different matters. War will occur that is just human nature. My point is given the demand for equality made by many, requirements for conscription or draft if they must exist should be applied in an equal manner regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 05:12 AM
3

What does that have to do with anything? In this day and age of claiming gender inequality this is the ultimate test. Let’s all die in equal number
/r/MensRights04/01/20 04:51 AM
1

Bolivia, Chad, Eritrea, Israel, Mozambique, Norway, North Korea and Sweden have got it right in that females are also subject to draft in these countries.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 01:33 AM
3

That is the same reason non therapeutic circumcision of infant males was excluded from discussion when fgm laws were being established. At some point a line has to be drawn because the hypocrisy detracts significantly from the initial argument.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 09:52 PM
4

Why would religious exclusion be a consideration when the claim is either harm caused to a child or a breach to the rights of a child? How do you rationalise it?
/r/MensRights02/01/20 07:59 PM
4

I know Muslims who don’t agree with doing it as well. The element most difficult for them to defend is this simple question. Should religious membership always be by choice?
/r/MensRights02/01/20 01:49 PM
3

Sorry to hear of your loss. I wanted to highlight how disgusting the dick shaming is that occurs on both sides of the fence. People victimising one another because of being either circumcised or not circumcised, it’s fucking childish and pathetic. There are two arguments that typically fall out from circumcision discussion one being “my dick is better than your dick” and the other being “don’t permanently alter my dick without my permission”. Avoid the first argument because there is no shame in…
/r/MensRights02/01/20 09:11 AM
2

The grand majority are done for religious reasons with “2 billion” Muslims globally we can assume “1 billion are circumcised males”. The US contributes about “100 million” of ignorant non religious and Jews about “15 million”. The majority of the remainder are older generations who are the remnant of the 1930-1960’s post ww2 fear mongers. So the majority are religious, regardless it is the religious opposition that has stifled restriction as opposed to those who claim “cosmetic” preference.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 08:57 AM
0

Circumcision continues for one reason and that is religious demand. Every effort thus far to restrict the practice has been prevented because of religious outcry and claim of anti semitism and islamophobia. Were it not for this practice being entrenched in religion it would have been banned at the same time fgm was banned.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 04:23 AM
10

Gender inequality is one of the most prominent matters of our era and if you hadn’t noticed it is illegal to do anything even remotely similar or profoundly less to a female. This is not a matter to speak quietly about because you see it as being a non issue, some countries are on the cusp of preventing you from doing it to your sons. Some may feel the practice is protected due to religious demand when all it represents is forced religious membership. Children are protected by the now most ratif…
/r/MensRights01/01/20 09:40 PM
14

This is predominantly an American platform and ignorance concerning this matter in the US is absolutely mind blowing. The frequency of posts concerning circumcision is simply proportionate to that need and the extent of ignorance.
/r/MensRights01/01/20 08:31 PM
5

In this day and age that excuse simply does not fly anymore.
/r/MensRights01/01/20 01:47 PM
6

It is only a matter of time, I suspect many who mandate circumcision simply think that if it is restricted they will simply travel to a location where it isn’t restricted and just have it done there. If I consider the laws in AU and NZ concerning FGM it is illegal to have it performed out of country and you will be subject to prosecution on return. In addition medical practitioners are mandated by law to report all elements and suspicions of child abuse making detection likely. Media is being sa…
/r/MensRights01/01/20 12:43 AM
7

The most ratified convention in history being the UNCRC mandates it.
/r/MensRights01/01/20 12:11 AM
6

I feel religious bodies are well aware that the time is coming where they will be held to account for practices that are blatantly unethical. If we consider the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (UNCRC) which is the most ratified convention in history, “Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.…
/r/MensRights01/01/20 12:09 AM
11

Circumcision from a religious perspective represents forced religious membership. Insisting that your children hold religious membership by default simply as a result of being born is a breach of human rights.
/r/MensRights31/12/19 11:40 PM
11

Agree, let’s face it your ass will always require greater attention from a hygiene perspective than your dick ever will so while you are cleaning one you just clean the other. Pro circumcisers need to realise there are more first world countries that don’t circumcise than do and the sky hasn’t fallen in for them.
/r/MensRights31/12/19 11:36 PM
2

In real life she states “hubby insisted”
/r/MensRights30/12/19 12:06 PM
7

Do you feel religious membership should be by choice? The reality is religious membership is reversible however religious circumcision is not. From a human rights perspective concerning specifically children all is detailed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which is the most ratified convention in history. “Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion,…
/r/MensRights30/12/19 12:17 AM
2

I feel it is in part due to the belief in the disposability of males that resulted from historical war time efforts. Conscription / draft laws where they still exist should be amended to be gender neutral and have it known that men and women will die in equal number during the next wartime effort. See how that grabs those who scream gender inequality.
/r/MensRights29/12/19 11:14 AM
2

No no and no
/r/MensRights29/12/19 01:12 AM
6

Where I was born the neonate circumcision rates were at one time 95% and now in the vicinity of 5%. I suspect more mothers than fathers said no to achieve this decline.
/r/MensRights27/12/19 10:26 AM
8

If you are in the US you should be pushing for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the child this being one of the most prominent agreements being used to push for restriction. Of the 195 UN members the US is the only member that has failed to ratify in part because the US does not like being held to account for anything. Here is a submission made to the AU children’s commissioner last year that gives an in sight as to why the UNCRC is important. http://aiga.org.au/wp-content/upl…
/r/MensRights27/12/19 02:44 AM
11

You have my full support
/r/MensRights27/12/19 02:16 AM
1

Da da daaaaaaa!
/r/MensRights21/12/19 08:26 AM
4

Agree
/r/MensRights20/12/19 08:42 AM
44

I’ve seen a few post on there recently get taken down circumcision and MR related. Mods must feel insecure about their dicks
/r/MensRights19/12/19 05:53 AM
5

Circumcision of children for religious reasons amounts to forced religious membership. Do you think religious membership should be by choice?
/r/MensRights19/12/19 12:54 AM
5

I’m not anti circumcision I am pro the protection of children.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 12:46 AM
8

Here is a fact sheet from the largest children’s hospital in Australia. They deal with the ailments of children day in and day out and they don’t recommend it. www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/factsheets/male_infant_circumcision-en.pdf
/r/MensRights18/12/19 03:49 AM
6

There is a difference between which country is most known for something as opposed to what is most prominent in a given country, I suspect most in the Phillipines don’t even know why they circumcise and suspect it is in part a product of being conquered and ruled by anyone and everyone over many centuries:
/r/MensRights18/12/19 02:24 AM
5

Free circumcisions to homeless adult men or just round up all males like cattle?
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:39 PM
17

Why should other males have to be circumcised because you feel it is a non issue? Apathy born from not having a choice in the first place and then perpetuating the practice as a result is ultimately at the expense of others. If it is a preference you hold, by getting it done when you are of age it is at your own expense not at the cost of others which is in part why the practice will eventually become restricted.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:25 PM
33

Circumcision in the Phillipines is a 200 year old remnant of Islam. It is also an example of backwardness from a cultural perspective with ridicule being the most prominent tool used to continue the practice. It is no wonder the Phillipines is most well known for prostitution and child sex tourists.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:16 PM
1

Your mother did pretty well, this kids mother left and didn’t take her kids with her.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 08:54 AM
0

This is just a person expressing their experience. For starters she stated that her “mother” left so if this was a men are shit post she probably would have omitted that part. If the child is ten and learning to cook to help out well that’s a common complaint, I had to do the same and both my parents worked doubles. Several decades later and I can still turn flour and water into a master chef winner. I don’t think this person is shitting on men.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 08:28 AM
2

Yes true, I will forgive myself for the failing
/r/MensRights16/12/19 03:09 PM
2

That is true, I would have had numerous discussions concerning this matter just in that one evening. It wasn't my intention to poorly express my view but suspect my thinking when I wrote that was also "no waiting until you are eighteen is not a simple answer other wise the practice would have already been restricted" none the less my response obviously closed the dialogue, seldom my intention. In terms of forced religious membership the matter does go beyond forced permanent changes to body alth…
/r/MensRights16/12/19 03:08 PM
0

I'm not new to this discussion
/r/MensRights16/12/19 02:54 PM
0

I didn't misread his comment, I was stating that religious opposition being resolved by it being done when you are 18 "doesn't make sense" because the religions that do it also dictate your religious membership at birth.
/r/MensRights16/12/19 02:49 PM
1

Circumcision rates went from 95% to 5% where I am from, now it’s only the religious and the extremely ignorant that still do it.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 01:43 AM
1

The reason why it is still not illegal is because "you can still get it done when you are 18"? Doesn't make sense
/r/MensRights12/12/19 09:43 PM
9

The ADL made threats that American tourists would stop going to Iceland. In New Zealand the average Kiwi would simply say fuck the Americans we don’t want them coming here in the first place. The next nazi Germany is the boring sound of a broken record player, many of our citizens died fighting the nazis so if the religious have an expectation of a debt to be paid they will be putting out their hand to the wrong people. Followers of Islam and Judaism combined would be about 1% of the population …
/r/MensRights12/12/19 10:47 AM
10

I don’t have an issue with religion provided membership is not forced and it’s teachings do not result in the oppression of others. Very few religions can live up to these requirements. Permanently modifying a child’s genitals on the basis of religion is forced religious membership.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 04:01 AM
19

The reason why it is not yet illegal is because of religious opposition. It will be restricted regardless, just going to take longer than it did with fgm.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 03:39 AM
9

The answer is simply no it is not warranted. There are numerous nations that don’t circumcise without any adverse health outcomes. They are living proof it is unnecessary as a preventative measure of anything.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 03:33 AM
4

When used in the context of my comment the term modify is sufficient to get the point across. It doesn't detract from my intention.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 11:53 PM
15

It’s a massive double standard is what it is and if you look at it with roles reversed eg I think vaginal labia are ugly or unattractive there for that justifies having them trimmed on female babies because they won’t remember the pain of it being done and it will be easier to clean... (Edit) oh wait it would be illegal to do that.....
/r/MensRights09/12/19 09:48 AM
22

I try to stay as balanced as possible when I have discussion with people like that because I simply don’t support dick shaming circumcised or not. There is no shame in being circumcised or being intact however imposing that shit on a child, that is a no ball gutless shameful thing to do and I am happy to ridicule those people.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 08:59 AM
36

Totally agree There are two arguments that typically fall out from circumcision discussion being “my dick is better than your dick” and “don’t permanently modify my dick without my permission”. It amazes me how many low IQ oxygen thieves get the two mixed up.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 08:44 AM
2

The AAP has had a specific and dedicated policy concerning circumcision for about 5 decades now, so why would they all of a sudden find themselves without one? Did they just forget or were the issues with their 2012 policy so great that they are doing a two year rewrite? By their own admission how they worded the abstract was taken out of context by media and pro circumcision practitioners resulting in thousands of babies being circumcised under false pretences. In terms of the pain management p…
/r/MensRights09/12/19 08:03 AM
2

I will have a proper read when I get a moment. But regardless their 2012 policy that poorly stated “the being its outweighs the risks” has been expired for over two years along with that recommendation. What you have linked I doubt is intended to replace their circumcision policy otherwise it would have been referenced in the header. Just prior to the expiry of their circumcision policy (two years ago) they issued an update to another policy being "Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in…
/r/MensRights09/12/19 07:05 AM
2

In the footer of every AAP policy it states the following- “All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.” https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 The policy expired in 2017 and was not renewed, reissued or replaced, that detail is always listed and linked in the header. It is no longer valid
/r/MensRights09/12/19 06:37 AM
2

Everywhere else in the world we are invoking the articles of the Convention on the rights of the child to prepare for restrictions to be applied. The AAP were rather cunning in how they worded their policy and abstract however that is all irrelevant given their policy expired over two years ago. The US will likely be the last country on earth to restrict the practice however concerning the rest of the world the dominos are starting to fall.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 06:22 AM
6

Where I am from neonate circumcision rates are around 5% and if the question was put to referendum the people would landslide this practice into history.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 06:17 AM
5

When considering the claim of health benefits you really need to have an understanding of context because for the grand majority of those circumcised those benefits would never be realised anyway. Circumcision does come with risks and complications so if you are likely to never need circumcision you are placing a child at unnecessary risk. Better to be safe than sorry is decision you can make when of age.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 04:17 AM
4

If I use the example of fgm laws imposed in AU, NZ and a number of other places it is actually illegal to travel a location or other country, have it performed and return. People have been prosecuted for exactly that. If a person chooses to have it done at a later date it will be by their own choosing and their own cost because regardless of religious belief it is essentially cosmetic. The pain you suffer as a result of a cosmetic procedure that you choose is at your cost. That will not change e…
/r/MensRights09/12/19 02:20 AM
7

What I am stating is that regardless of what you think laws are going to be imposed that prevent genital modifications of male children as they have been with females. Nothing is going to be sufficient to justify it.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 01:56 AM
6

I doubt that so clarify then. All religious laws are irrelevant in our societies so impress me.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 01:24 AM
5

Let me guess, biblical circumcision? Under the laws that are being and going to be passed not justified and not permissible either.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 01:09 AM
9

Recalling why they do it is still insufficient to allow and exclusion of rights to their children.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 12:22 AM
6

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” This includes modifying genitals of children. This convention has been ratified by 194 of the 195 UN members and it is no great surprise the USA is the only country to have failed to ratify. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf
/r/MensRights09/12/19 12:19 AM
8

Bans are going to be imposed all over the place and those religious or not that insist upon this for male babies will simply have to take a seat with those who want to do the same to their daughters.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 12:02 AM
6

If you are over the age of 40 and circumcised as a baby there is a 100% chance it was done with absolutely no pain relief. Even today in a country like the US half of the states still list pain relief as optional. So if you want to have an understanding of the lack of empathy towards boys from birth watch the procedure being done without anaesthetic. I can only assume the mother having just endured a painful birth feels justified in immediately subjecting her son to pain.
/r/MensRights08/12/19 06:15 AM
8

Some societies lose their empathy for boys the moment they are born.
/r/MensRights08/12/19 05:10 AM
3

Unfortunately Germany is poorly placed to push back on religious circumcision due to the obvious criticism from ww2. Technically many countries have laws that should prohibit non therapeutic circumcision of male children however few speak specifically about circumcision. The only country I am aware of the prohibits the practice prior to the age of 16 is South Africa. In NZ where I am from neonate circumcision rates were on conclusion of ww2 95% making it the highest rate observed in all English …
/r/MensRights08/12/19 12:41 AM
4

The only shame to be felt is by those doing the cutting not the victims of the cutting, be kind to yourself.
/r/MensRights07/12/19 10:06 PM
5

Au is about ten years behind nz
/r/MensRights07/12/19 02:07 PM
12

I think more in the vicinity of 30-40 years. Only half the population do it now and progressively fewer and fewer will embrace it. It’s a natural decline occurring everywhere that results from awareness and conscience.
/r/MensRights07/12/19 11:22 AM
21

And like dominos they will all fall. First Finland then all Nordic and Scandinavian countries the EU as a whole then NZ and AU and so on and so forth.
/r/MensRights07/12/19 09:56 AM
3

What are the benefits that might benefit a child? The only real element I see is the fact that it is for the majority imposed without choice. As far as pros and cons are concerned that should be for you to determine yourself.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 11:45 AM
3

Here is a submission made to the Australian children’s commissioner last year. It covers a number of points as to why the practice needs to be restricted. A lot of the key focus is around the Convention on the rights of the child which Canada has ratified. Rewrite it to make it more relevant to Canada and submit it to your child rights equivalent. http://aiga.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AIGA-Submission_National-Childrens-Commissioner_May-2018_FINAL.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/documents/profe…
/r/MensRights05/12/19 10:18 PM
1

Where I am from circumcision rates were at one time 95% and now it is 5%. Mothers played a big role in that decline. I don’t recall ever encountering a women who thought a foreskin was disgusting outside of the ones who think all genitals are disgusting. In terms of restricting the practice to protect male children do you think it will be religion that prevents it from occurring or women? The point is the only relevant hinderance to protecting all male children is Islam and Judaism: Until people…
/r/MensRights05/12/19 09:58 PM
4

The grand majority of circumcisions performed global are due to religion. Virtually all western societies have been seeing decline and abandonment for decades and their are many developed nations who never embraced it in the first place. It has nothing to do with female opposition it has everything to do with with religious demand which has stifled all attempts thus far to protect male children. Imposing circumcision on a child for religious reasons amounts to forced religious membership. In ter…
/r/MensRights05/12/19 11:01 AM
2

The comments section on that video was fun as always.
/r/MensRights05/12/19 04:53 AM
2

A token of their appreciation to the “having stuff” god?
/r/MensRights03/12/19 09:20 AM
1

You are welcome
/r/MensRights03/12/19 09:07 AM
3

You can miss and regret what you have only known for a moment, what you are describing is subjective. Apathy is a common product of having no choice in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/12/19 09:01 AM
4

If you state you are okay with having been circumcised and parents doing this to their children you are clearly not in support of my right to not have this done without my consent. That means if my parents circumcised me, something I would oppose, your “want” is at my “expense”. If parents were prohibited from doing it to male children without absolute medical necessity as is the case with female children you would still be able to pursue circumcision when of age. If anything goes wrong, guess w…
/r/MensRights03/12/19 08:04 AM
2

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) stipulates what rights must be afforded to all children as a minimum. This convention has been ratified by all UN members (194) with the exception of one member making it the most ratified convention in history. Guess which country failed to ratify it? https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf
/r/MensRights03/12/19 05:51 AM
4

Well done, you are in good company being most parents in the developed world. The states in the US that still have circumcision rates of up to 90% hold little resemblance to the majority of the free world. As I said where I am from that cage is almost empty and the days where that cage is even permitted to exist are numbered.
/r/MensRights03/12/19 05:17 AM
9

Where I am from (NZ) neonate circumcision rates were at one time 95% and now it is in the vicinity of 5%. Even those in cages can let their children fly if they choose to we are living proof of that, everything else is a bullshit excuse.
/r/MensRights03/12/19 04:51 AM
6

Agree What I tend to state to men who say they prefer being circumcised is “Why should I have to be circumcised because you prefer it?”. Men who feel it is their preference should do it at their own cost not the expense of others.
/r/MensRights03/12/19 03:30 AM
6

The issue highlights greater problems within societies which include Gender inequality in that females are protected regardless of the religious or cultural benefits of parents but males are not because of the parents religious and cultural beliefs. It also represents human rights breach because it amounts to forced religious membership and goes against Hippocratic oath which forms the ethical basis of medical practitioners. It is sad that some parents are superficial child abusing hypocrites ho…
/r/MensRights03/12/19 01:23 AM
16

Eventually one of these initiatives will pass how ever it is more likely to occur through the will of the people via referendum. If the government lacks the will to act it is up to the people and in many countries if put to a vote by the people this practice will be a landslide into history.
/r/MensRights02/12/19 09:43 PM
8

If American I can only assume the thinking is that if a child is required to clean their penis it could draw their attention to an act that might see them burn in hell for an eternity. Exceptionalism plays a role as well with Americans forgetting oddly that billions of males are not circumcised and do not suffer what ever dreaded fate they feel results. 100 odd million circumcised males in the US, over 40 million citizens without health insurance and rated 57th for child mortality. Try spending …
/r/MensRights01/12/19 11:17 PM
7

Morris is one of most creepy individuals you will ever encounter. If he had his way circumcision would be mandatory. Here is an interesting read in response to Morris misinformation https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/52d9/4f6b1294bdc53444b653cd9ca64e27cdfa99.pdf?_ga=2.65511150.1512685491.1575080342-493203084.1575080342
/r/MensRights30/11/19 02:27 AM
6

It seems highly likely this man has an archive of circumcision footage he visits frequently.
/r/MensRights30/11/19 02:21 AM
1

Islam and Judaism is the only reason why this practice is still a thing.
/r/MensRights29/11/19 05:08 AM
3

The Jewish community in Iceland is nonexistent. Islam and Judaism is the only reason why it’s not already illegal.
/r/MensRights29/11/19 05:06 AM
1

If it was that easy the last ten attempts by nations in the EU would have been successful. 95% of NZ population don’t do it and for many it is because the view it as being immoral, unethical, barbaric and a breach of the rights of the child. Israel and then by default the US would make threats that would likely include impacts to trade and defence. They would view it as the oppression of a minority whilst we would view it as being upholding the rights of children. I honestly don’t care what the …
/r/MensRights28/11/19 05:00 AM
1

A significant proportion of the population smoke it daily regardless of it being illegal. Prohibition doesn’t work never has never will.
/r/MensRights28/11/19 04:51 AM
1

Can’t say I disagree with what you are saying. It has been a case of old people saying no for reasons they can’t recall.
/r/MensRights28/11/19 03:26 AM
1

That is the case concerning Islam as no age is specified so deferring until the age of 16 does not seem unreasonable. Those from Pacifica that insist upon it generally don’t do it until teen years anyway. Jews on the other hand insist it be done at age day 7. That is where the issue rests and if you haven’t noticed there is a current campaign running in both AU and NZ making frequent claims of rising anti Semitic incidents. Jews would be lucky to make up half a percent of the population in NZ. I…
/r/MensRights28/11/19 03:16 AM
1

Several European countries have tried and continue to try to correct this blatant inequality male children suffer without success thus far. All that is required is for one country (other than SA) to successfully restrict the practice and a number of other countries will follow. Followers of religions that insist male children be subjected to it will scream exclusion and bigotry creating division amongst current allies. In reality what will happen is those religious people get to take a seat with…
/r/MensRights27/11/19 09:34 PM
1

I don’t consider permitting assisted suicide or the smoking of weed to be human rights breaches yet in a significant proportion of the world both are illegal. Both matters will be dealt with via referendum and the outcome determined by the people. I don’t see it as being productive to simply state that the government made it illegal in the first place so they can just walk it back. You could pose that question to the people who originally made these matters illegal but unfortunately most if not …
/r/MensRights27/11/19 09:24 PM
1

I am aware of the finer detail but thank you for reciting a wiki search. When I said NZ was the first country to allow women to vote I was talking about “all” women and the fact that it was a self governing colony at the time only further fortifies my point. A country allowing “some” women to vote seems no more interesting than a country allowing “some” men to vote. The relevance or my reasoning for stating the fact is because NZ a little dot in the middle of nowhere had the capacity to be the “…
/r/MensRights27/11/19 09:17 PM
1

Bit of trivia nz was the first country in the world to extend voting rights to women by decades
/r/MensRights27/11/19 11:21 AM
1

If New Zealand extended the same genital integrity rights that females enjoy to males they would be the first to do so and the world would then collapse.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 10:10 AM
1

I have no issue with the tough matters going to referendum. If it is not a human rights breach let the will of the people speak.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 10:08 AM
1

It’s not supposed to be “their” choice, they are supposed to heed and then act upon the will of the people.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 06:21 AM
1

The reason why they won’t rebrand “female genital mutilation” in law to the gender neutral “genital mutilation” law that it should be is because to them it represents political suicide.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 06:20 AM
1

Put it this way, this gov lacks the will to prevent young people being forced into gender correction therapy because it might offend most religions which oppose anything different to their view. They sure as hell won’t protect male infants from having their genitals permanently altered even though 95% of people in nz have abandoned the practice, once again religious demand.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 05:51 AM
1

The focus of this government was supposed to be a push for gender neutrality in law however some of the key initiatives are in opposition to so called religious freedom. The gov lacks the strength of will held by the people.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 05:45 AM
1

My understanding is that there has never really been a significant gap between rights afforded to the common man and women. These are relatively new concepts in our modern era. In terms of advocacy other than general human rights I focus predominantly on the rights of children and their equality. Success in that focus would resolve many of the current complaints over a couple of generations. Men’s rights and women’s rights is governed by a swinging pendulum that has no real end to it.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 05:13 AM
1

They are certainly matters that both I and others have always advocated. As a man I have personally suffered at the hand of poorly applied equality. The problem with many who advocate solely for matters that impact their own gender is a rapid decent into misogyny and misandry. Trying to combat inequality with hate is the wrong approach imo
/r/MensRights27/11/19 03:43 AM
1

Family members who were and are advocates long before my birth. I’ve attended a lot of protests over the course of my life.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 02:47 AM
1

Amnesty International and the NZ Human Rights Foundation?
/r/MensRights27/11/19 02:33 AM
1

Activism and rights advocacy is a family affair for me, you could say I was born into it.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 02:14 AM
1

Sure amnesty and hr foundation
/r/MensRights27/11/19 02:10 AM
1

I am an actual advocate, interactive media platforms like reddit serve the cause. Propaganda pushers are easy to spot when you know what you are looking for.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 01:54 AM
1

The majority of the 5k+ upvotes I have received resulted from advocating for men’s, women’s and children’s rights. The largest proportion received from people from this sub. I am not an MRA I’m a human rights advocate
/r/MensRights27/11/19 01:27 AM
1

You didn’t answer the question did you
/r/MensRights27/11/19 01:09 AM
1

I could only make assumption as to who or why. Given how quickly you linked the suicide article which I knew you would perhaps you could give an insight?
/r/MensRights27/11/19 01:05 AM
1

What I am saying is that some people are deliberately posting hit pieces about NZ that are based on manipulated rationale and information to the point that it is starting to look like a campaign.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 12:54 AM
1

I am basing my understanding on legitimate study and indexing not assumptions. I could assume anything about anything but that doesn’t really mean anything. Buying into bullshit articles that amount to little more than hit pieces is not what I do and if you are even remotely astute you don’t need to look far to see the manipulations.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 11:36 PM
1

And of the 197 countries on earth you think Nz is the best at concealing corruption? Once again you presented an article concerning suicide that in the title states that NZ has the highest rate “in the developed world” yet only half of the developed countries were cherry picked for the study.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 11:28 PM
1

Around 1995 several bodies were established to conduct global indexing in the most transparent manner possible. All of them rate Nz as being number one or number two least corrupt globally. Why did you glean over the obvious manipulation that I detailed concerning the suicide article?
/r/MensRights26/11/19 10:56 PM
1

Once again an article designed to deliberately portray the worst. This article and study cherry picks only half of the worlds developed nations and then claims “in the developed world”. In addition the UK study making the claim manipulates cohort age groups for children, youth and young people to bias the findings. I have actually reviewed the 4year old data set they used in that study.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 10:35 PM
1

Nz is not first or second or even in the top ten of most of the things you mentioned. What is leading you to believe that bullshit is manipulation. As an example if I cherry pick ten countries and compare the statistics I could make any country appear as the worst in anything. 197 countries on earth, believe me nz is one of the best not the worst. If this is a matter you feel strongly about I would suggest actually reviewing global indexes conducted by the bodies that were established over two d…
/r/MensRights26/11/19 10:17 PM
2

Agree to the tune of a couple of billion boys
/r/MensRights26/11/19 11:44 AM
1

Trust me there has been a spate of deliberate articles making bias claims on the basis of manipulated statistics concerning NZ. NZ shits on most other developed countries in terms of global indexes such as life expectancy, happiness, average IQ and so on. New Zealand is rated 1st or 2nd least corrupt country on earth across all indexes. The deformation campaign running at the moment could very well be driven by lobbies that know full well they can’t buy favour in our government. I see traces of …
/r/MensRights26/11/19 11:33 AM
2

I have seen a number of articles recently that blatantly manipulate statistics for the purpose of trying to make out NZ is worse than what it is. If men are being charged or warned falsely of domestic violence frequently then what does that mean when someone makes the statement that NZ statistically has the highest levels of DV in the world? Is this manipulation of statistics falsely inflated for an alternate motive or not?
/r/MensRights26/11/19 06:25 AM
1

“For every child every right” is the focus of the UN at this time concerning the UNCRC. I didn’t mention FGM however I was talking about the article that is supposed to protect about a couple of billion male infants. It’s more relevant than you think.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 05:13 AM
1

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” This includes permanent modification of a child’s genitals on the basis of religion which represents forced religious membership. It seems only a handful of the 197 countries who have ratified the UNCRC are even trying to adhere to this obligation let alone the numerou…
/r/MensRights26/11/19 04:22 AM
2

There has been a spate of anti New Zealand propaganda recently on reddit and some media outlets. It’s a deliberate campaign that is being run.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 03:59 AM
2

It is difficult for me to rationalise the concept of exception when the element of exclusion is the right of a child. If the same was done to you as an adult people would be going to prison.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 10:24 AM
1

If you are looking for support in community understand the demographics because circumcision as a practice by the majority was abandoned decades ago. You will find very few young people that even understand it’s an issue because for them it is not. The cohort last impacted by this are now 40-50+ years old. I feel terrible about any young people that need a place at that table. It is a children’s rights issue that can later become a men’s rights issue. Children don’t circumcise other children the…
/r/MensRights23/11/19 09:19 AM
1

This matter represents political suicide for anyone who picks it up so don’t be surprised by reluctance. Politicians are focused on keeping their jobs typically however if it can be done anywhere it’s the land of the long white cloud.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 09:10 AM
2

Yes absolutely but ultimately this is a children’s rights matter. The Health commissioner understands the unnecessary nature of the procedure and obligation of Hippocratic oath however is not well placed to couple that with religious, cultural and traditional right or ethics for the procedure without medical indication. Having said that his area of responsibility was the key player in a 90% national decline in the practice.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 09:03 AM
1

Andrew Becroft is the children’s commissioner for NZ and the one you need to hold to account.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:43 AM
2

I’ve sent you some links via pm. The submission to the Australian Children’s Commissioner covers most of the UNCRC stuff
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:41 AM
1

Done
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:29 AM
1

I can point you to some information and ideas if you want to do something about it.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:27 AM
2

My classes were mix raced every colour but more white than anything else. When I said after the war 95% were being circumcised, the 5% that were not was pretty much the Maori.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:22 AM
2

So what’s the solution? Do you think the gov has the strength of will to go against religious demand, I know if it went to referendum the practice would be a landslide into history.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:19 AM
1

My personal experience, primary and secondary schools late 1970’s and 1980’s 15-20 males per class was only ever 1-2 boys circumcised in any of the classes I was in. Would have consider my peers and I to have been middle class from a socioeconomic perspective.
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:09 AM
2

City med sounds like a circumcision clinic, wouldn’t go by anything they have to say. https://www.southerncross.co.nz/group/medical-library/circumcision “estimated at less than 10% of boys” This org has been around for about 80 years. Don’t forget that at the conclusion of ww2 neonate circumcision rates were 95%
/r/MensRights23/11/19 08:06 AM
3

How the figure for nz is typically stated is less than 10% not 10%. One way to work out potential numbers is to identify percentage of Muslims, Jews and islanders who consistently circumcise + .4% being the potential risk for medically necessary circumcision. It is difficult to gauge due to the ministry of health not offering one cent to the procedure in addition to not allowing it to be performed in public hospitals. My experience and feeling tells me it is more in the vicinity of 5% a very unp…
/r/MensRights23/11/19 07:17 AM
0

America is comprised of a significant number of ignorant baby cock cutters so from my perspective and probably several billion others no the US is not the default and not the preferred role model.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 10:18 PM
1

Prior to the speech we were selling humans in open air markets so not sure what you mean or what privileged society you live in.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 09:02 AM
3

We are clearly on the same side. I see value to any discussion or even argument that explores the hows and the whys of this abhorrent practice. If eradication is the end game don’t underestimate the value of the journey and successes already achieved by others, plenty of learning to share. I’m only looking to resolve a further 4.6% in my society however this is the hardest element to tackle. (edit) it is a conscious decision, no excuses
/r/MensRights21/11/19 08:54 AM
2

Where is the rebuttal?
/r/MensRights20/11/19 11:32 PM
8

I am not American and am unsure as to why it would be assumed that I am. I am from New Zealand and here neonate circumcision rates were at one time 95% and considered at that time the highest of all English speaking nations. Now the circumcision rate is in the vicinity of 5%. People conform to perceived social norms for a variety of reasons and often that demand surpasses personal regret over a clear understanding of harm caused or wrong doing. Denial does not necessarily equate to belief that h…
/r/MensRights20/11/19 10:55 PM
1

The whole concept of men’s and women’s rights is counterproductive and a relatively new concept mere decades old in our modern era. The fundamental principle of rights is they be afforded without prejudice including gender, all that falls outside of that thinking is nothing more than a selfish want. Im a human rights advocate In terms of trump he would be a moron regardless of being male or female.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 10:33 PM
2

There have been a number of instances of trump display blatantly poor character be it his infidelity whilst married through to his belief women like it when rich men grab them by the pussy not to mention the thousands of tweets that reek of retardation. You would think in the least the leader of the so called free world would have the intellect to at least be able to spell basic words.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 10:10 PM
2

Globally he is a laughing stock and in turn so are you because he is your elected leader. He has single handedly destroyed any positive influence potential your country might have had previously. Pretty much driving nations into the arms of Russia and China
/r/MensRights20/11/19 09:49 PM
11

The mother is typically the one who provides after care to the child and the one who will be changing nappies. They see the pain that they are causing their child when dressing the wound and applying petroleum jelly, They know what they have done.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 09:39 PM
25

Female infants are afforded genital integrity in the absence of their capacity for autonomy. Males are not, that’s the point.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 09:35 PM
1

The now deleted explanation under the title was an apology for begging for upvotes
/r/MensRights19/11/19 09:51 PM
8

Same to you and all others as well
/r/MensRights19/11/19 01:07 PM
5

I celebrate everyday
/r/MensRights19/11/19 12:27 PM
3

Reproductive right is a relatively new concept and a mere subset to our modern understanding of human rights. Biologically genders are different but still dependant on one another for the purpose of reproduction. Current attempts at the application of reproductive rights are incomplete, often incorrect and not afforded without prejudice in many instances. If right is to be extended equally I do not see it as being unreasonable that options exist for both males and females when considering reprod…
/r/MensRights19/11/19 10:29 AM
5

Neither the common man or women had rights as such until the application of active suffrage was first extended to the common man and then shortly after women. Your ability to vote for government then allowed the common person to shape societies. Our modern concept of human rights a mere seven decades old has been neglected in favour of demands by gender. If a right cannot be extended without prejudice including gender it is not a right as such imo, it is a selfish want.
/r/MensRights19/11/19 06:10 AM
5

You dirty little upvote beggar
/r/MensRights19/11/19 06:02 AM
7

Men are entitled to the same rights as women they are called human rights. A fundamental condition to the application of human rights is they be afforded without prejudice including gender. The expectation of rights specific to gender goes against the concept of human rights this being the error made by our societies. If a right cannot be extended regardless of gender it is not a right worthy of support in my humble opinion.
/r/MensRights19/11/19 05:57 AM
3

Change? Males be afforded the same protections as females
/r/MensRights18/11/19 11:07 PM
13

The problem is the belief that children can be forced into religious membership. It doesn’t matter what religion, circumcision of infants or children for the purpose of the religious beliefs of others is forced religious membership.
/r/MensRights15/11/19 11:56 PM
14

Suicide by children also occurs more often than you may think. Let’s fix that one as well
/r/MensRights11/11/19 01:21 PM
1

What’s the difference? It’s not even about state it’s about the protection of children and young people. The rest of the world already agrees “Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf The UNCRC has been ratified by 195 countries with the US being the…
/r/MensRights11/11/19 05:28 AM
1

The point is the opposition to restrictions being imposed will come in the form of religious opposition not secular. The fact that harm results will be insufficient.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 12:50 AM
1

Won't happen because of claims to religious freedom. The only way you could achieve it would be to acknowledge that forced religious membership of children and young people is immoral and making that prohibited.
/r/MensRights11/11/19 12:30 AM
2

In terms of environment, technology such as the internet, digital gaming etc has caused significant impacts to physical and psychological health of both males and females. Concerning my father he was not the man I would ever want to be.
/r/MensRights10/11/19 11:07 PM
1

Where I am from the circumcision rates were at one time 95% now they are around 5%. We didn’t need any laws to achieve that.
/r/MensRights07/11/19 11:01 PM
2

Here is a submission to the children’s commissioner of Australia from last year which details all of the relevant UNCRC articles. http://aiga.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AIGA-Submission_National-Childrens-Commissioner_May-2018_FINAL.pdf
/r/MensRights07/11/19 12:58 PM
4

The UN established the Convention on the rights of the child being the most ratified convention in history noting that the US is the only member to have failed to ratify. Whilst this is not men’s rights specific it does detail the rights that should be afforded to both male and female children as a minimum.
/r/MensRights07/11/19 12:47 PM
2

As a side note if it does become an issue I have heard lengthy information sessions on dick, ball and prostate cancers soon clears the way. Yeah you might not get scones from the shed next door for a couple of weeks.
/r/MensRights06/11/19 01:22 AM
2

Not aware of any women it would interest including virtue signallers, don’t know any men who would be interested in attending the women’s shed either.
/r/MensRights06/11/19 12:46 AM
4

Contact them and start a chapter in your country of origin if it interests you
/r/MensRights06/11/19 12:33 AM
4

It’s an Australian initiative https://mensshed.org
/r/MensRights06/11/19 12:15 AM
8

Men’s shed Adult males come together to share time in a shed or workshop environment focusing upon good old manual trade projects wood and steel related. Interesting discussion about men’s issues and personal issues as well. Couple of beers at the end
/r/MensRights06/11/19 12:11 AM
8

In my opinion we are progressively moving towards gender neutrality where laws and rights are perceived as being relevant regardless of gender. In that sense yes men’s rights will become irrelevant as will women’s rights.
/r/MensRights05/11/19 05:56 AM
6

Doing the equivalent to a female is illegal. If it is something you prefer get it done by your own choosing when you are of age then it doesn’t have to be at mine or anyone else’s expense. The fact that it might hurt is no excuse to expect others to forego the choice. Most don’t get circumcised given the option.
/r/MensRights04/11/19 06:49 AM
3

Try finding a valid argument for a change. Forced religious membership is immoral
/r/MensRights04/11/19 02:18 AM
5

We have had this conversation before and every time we do you fail to respond with anything other than low IQ wizard goat herder told me to do it.
/r/MensRights04/11/19 01:44 AM
6

As a parent if you had to do this to your child because of absolute medical necessity then yes that would be one of those difficult parenting decisions. Trying to claim this is just one of those things a parent is allowed to do is ridiculous, it's not like you can do the same to your daughter. As an adult you are protected from someone else modifying your dick without your permission and as a parent you should extend those rights where ever possible to your children. My parents wouldn't do such …
/r/MensRights04/11/19 01:41 AM
2

I'm from New Zealand and as I said circumcision rates fell from 95% to 5% here. Virtually all fathers at one time were circumcised and virtually all of them decided no not doing that to my son. Not sure why you would find that funny. I'm only looking to eradicate a further 4.7%, how bout you?
/r/MensRights04/11/19 12:32 AM
6

Why should I have to be circumcised because someone else prefers it?
/r/MensRights04/11/19 12:23 AM
9

The point is why should I have to be circumcised because someone else prefers it?
/r/MensRights04/11/19 12:21 AM
7

Why should I have to be circumcised because someone else prefers it?
/r/MensRights04/11/19 12:21 AM
3

Over the period of seventy years the circumcision rate went from 95% to 5%. It gets you nowhere apparently
/r/MensRights03/11/19 02:20 PM
2

yet female humans are protected
/r/MensRights03/11/19 02:15 PM
2

Why should I exclude gender equality as a variable?
/r/MensRights03/11/19 01:36 PM
2

Nothing else to say?
/r/MensRights03/11/19 10:45 AM
2

“Boys should be protected under these laws” Why? Is it because we have already determined what constitutes genital integrity as a right but only applied it to females? Or Because we have determined what constitutes genital integrity rights for females but not yet males? The hypocrisy of the thinking that female genitals are protected regardless of the cultural, traditional or religious beliefs of parents yet male genitals are not protected because of the cultural, traditional or religious belief…
/r/MensRights02/11/19 11:52 PM
4

The only way restrictions will be afforded is if these two variables are acknowledged. Male circumcision when imposed without consent or absolute medical necessity is a breach of genital integrity rights. Fgm is relevant in this instance as a point in discussion because it is the vehicle that has paved the way for laws to be applied but only in the instance of females. When considering genital integrity rights, gender is irrelevant and applicable to all who have genitals. Infant male circumcisio…
/r/MensRights02/11/19 10:49 PM
5

What I just stated is valid in that you are using a broad term to describe the most severe element and justifying it on an assumption. Both inflict injury, both result in a breach of genital integrity. When fgm was being considered as a breach of the genital integrity rights of women resulting in the laws that exist today, male infant circumcision was also being scrutinised. The only reason why circumcision was not pursued at that time was due to the likelihood of religious opposition which woul…
/r/MensRights02/11/19 10:17 PM
6

That is simply not true because you are using a term being female genital mutilation (FGM) which describes a variety of injuries some of which are less invasive than circumcision forced upon a child. Here are two statements, one is true and the other false. Fgm and Circumcision are not comparable. The removal of the clitoris and the removal of the foreskin are not comparable in most instances from a severity of injury perspective. You are trying to resolve your error with an assumption others kn…
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:53 PM
6

The fuss is fgm laws give full protections to the genital integrity of females and not males. That’s the point, so explain to me why this double standard should be allowed to occur?
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:26 PM
7

A ceremonial pinprick is considered fgm and illegal so how is that worse than circumcision of male children?
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:08 PM
3

Define fgm before expecting me to believe your statement.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:06 PM
11

The point is circumcision is not necessary from a health perspective but risks exist from doing it.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 08:23 PM
1

I believe both men's and women's rights are valid but think it is counter productive to play one against the other. I don't think that is an unpopular view even here.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 07:35 AM
1

China has lifted over 800 million of its citizens out of extreme poverty in the space of three decades which is simply remarkable. You understand human rights but not the definition of being an activist?
/r/MensRights01/11/19 11:46 AM
1

Activist : a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change. So you are trying to recruit specifically women to support a cause that I assume has the intention of bringing about political or social change?
/r/MensRights01/11/19 11:41 AM
1

I have to go to work aka my place of enslavement but will respond to anything further at a later date. My final thought for the moment is if you are not a human rights activist first and for most you will ultimately fail as an mra.
/r/MensRights01/11/19 02:05 AM
1

This right to equality across gender is merely a subset of our broader and collective understanding of human rights in general. The concept of human rights in our modern era is merely decades old and I feel more people need to ground themselves in the overarching thinking before delving ill equiped into some subset.
/r/MensRights01/11/19 02:02 AM
2

That reasoning was bullshit in the 80's however the YMCA was founded in 1844 so the statement I made was actually correct up till the time it was know longer relevant.
/r/MensRights01/11/19 01:10 AM
1

The pendulum is the problem As I said equality across genders in law is a good starting point.
/r/MensRights01/11/19 12:44 AM
2

My personal perspective is that the whole men's vs women's rights initiative is the wrong approach. All it does is breed misandry and misogyny being nothing but hate. Yes rights issues exist that are specific to a given gender however I feel the focus is best placed upon human rights and the rights of children which by their nature must be applied without prejudice including gender. Ensuring our laws are gender neutral is a good starting point. Some examples Female genital mutilation laws and al…
/r/MensRights31/10/19 10:22 PM
3

YMCA historically a place for males only would comfortably swim naked this being the norm for indoor swimming prior to textiles that did not impact upon hygiene and water filtration. This is actually not new to our societies however we did collectively move away from such practices I can only assume in response to an obligation of cohesion and equality. We moved away from this historically, perhaps we need to examine the reason as to why closely.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 10:16 PM
2

My personal perspective is that the whole men's vs women's rights initiative is the wrong approach. All it does is breed misandry and misogyny being nothing but hate. Yes rights issues exist that are specific to a given gender however I feel the focus is best placed upon human rights and the rights of children which by their nature must be applied without prejudice including gender. Ensuring our laws gender neutral is a good starting point. Some examples Female genital mutilation laws and all th…
/r/MensRights31/10/19 10:08 PM
1

Some countries such as Norway Sweden and Israel have already made mandatory conscription gender neutral. The almost exclusive use of males who die in war time effort has played a significant role in the attitudes of disposability that societies now place upon men in general. Do you not think it would be of benefit if women understand that during the next war effort they will be dying in equal number? Feminists would be obliged to agree as that change represents equality? That is called making a …
/r/MensRights30/10/19 06:06 AM
3

The issue you describe concerning feminism in our current era I believe is broadly known. Trying to combat that issue with an equally opposing force will see us reduced to the same thinking we are trying to oppose. As an example of how gender neutrality aids the cause is - Conscription or draft for war effort is made “gender neutral”. Female genital mutilation laws are made “gender neutral” and applied to all genders Etc and so on and so forth.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 05:46 AM
2

In all honesty men’s rights / women’s rights completely misses the mark. We can’t even extend equal rights to all children irrespective of gender let alone with adults. I feel we need to stick to gender neutrality when discussing rights of which a fundamental element is they be afforded without prejudice including gender.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 05:35 AM
2

How about we call it the men’s rights movement? Or Definitely not call it a word that describes a person as being a male feminist.......
/r/MensRights30/10/19 05:29 AM
2

Making up a new word is going to do that? The term meninism is a slang term that is not defined in any reputable dictionary. From Wikipedia “Meninism (sometimes Menism is also used) is the term which has been used to describe various groups, including the men's rights movement and male feminists. The term is sometimes used sincerely to challenge social issues facing men, and sometimes satirically or semi-satirically as a word-play on feminism. Members of these groups are known as meninists.” Fro…
/r/MensRights30/10/19 05:24 AM
2

No response from you of course because you don’t have a response other than because I want which is the same demand made by the people that do this to female children, we all know how that one ended.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 04:20 AM
4

First and foremost I see circumcision as being a child rights matter that equates to a men's rights matter. In addition for the largest proportion of circumcised males it represents forced religious membership. It is also a complete disregard for equality because of gender.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 11:13 PM
3

How committed are you? The UNCRC has been ratified by 195 countries and is the most ratified human rights convention in history.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 10:26 PM
7

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf This includes permanently modifying genitals on the basis of religious demand. Membership to religion is reversible circumcision is not. Even baptism can be reversed simply by thinking it is nonsense.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 09:55 PM
3

That route might see reduction but the only way to get restriction in place is to establish the fact that it represents forced membership to religion.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 08:19 PM
10

Focus on the things that you have control over and only take on the problems that you have created yourself. Life is a roller coaster ride you will be fine.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 11:09 AM
1

Don’t forget it was not that long ago that homosexuality was actually “illegal” in Christian based societies. Peoples views are radically changing and the extent of that is very recent. It takes time
/r/MensRights26/10/19 07:46 AM
2

What occurred in Iceland and Denmark I consider to be a progression. Concerning Iceland the political party pushing the bill only holds around 20% of power, the outcome may have been different if it was 60%. In addition their bill was flawed. None of these failures represent defeat in my mind they will try again. New Zealand is not dependant on the United States or Israel so threats from the ADL or anyone else doesn’t hold the same weight imo. We banned US warships from docking on our shores for…
/r/MensRights26/10/19 07:37 AM
1

I am well aware most Muslims perhaps don’t care for the opinions of their children concerning religion or circumcision. The point is the BMA sees it as being an ethical consideration. The majority of New Zealanders know longer follow any religion and in terms of Islam and Judaism they represent less than one percent of population. I for one after many decades of life in NZ have no recollection of any interaction with Jewish people or found their religion to be apparent anywhere. It is not unusua…
/r/MensRights26/10/19 07:10 AM
1

You have no sensitivity remaining in the foreskin remove that in itself is a loss of sensitivity. Circumcision causes loss of sensitivity fact. Females are 35 times at a greater risk of infection than an uncircumcised male. The circumcision of infants as a preventative health measure simply does not hold water which is why no pediatric society on earth recommends it. All other claims of benefit are not even relevant to children only adults at which time you as an adult are perfectly able to weig…
/r/MensRights26/10/19 04:53 AM
1

For the absolute majority of those circumcised without choice at the time it was performed there was no medical need and statistically (0.3%) there never would be. The moment the procedure is performed the potential of associated risks and complications are realised. Circumcised men do have to worry about hygiene issues given the majority will be having intercourse at some point in their life just as one example. Uncircumcised adults do not rush out and get it done because of a belief it results…
/r/MensRights26/10/19 04:15 AM
1

You don’t have to be uncircumcised that’s the point yet you can’t choose to not be circumcised. Circumcision is the permanent modification of a persons genitals and in this instance without choice, I don’t consider that minor or unimportant along with the majority of others. Trying to say well this is just one of many decisions a parent must make is ridiculous. You as an adult are protected from someone else modifying your genitals without your choosing and frankly as a parent you should be exte…
/r/MensRights26/10/19 03:36 AM
4

Why should I have to be circumcised because other people prefer it? If you prefer being circumcised get it done by your own choosing when you are of age then it is at your own cost not mine. What is so great about being able to decide for yourself what your dick will look and feel like for the entirety of your life? It permanent and the claimed benefits are bullshit frankly so why wouldn’t you want to decide for yourself. The foreskin feels good
/r/MensRights25/10/19 08:43 AM
3

Was my question to hard to answer?
/r/MensRights25/10/19 03:43 AM
9

I have 5k+ upvotes that prove otherwise
/r/MensRights25/10/19 03:36 AM
7

Why should I have to be circumcised because you prefer it? If it’s something you prefer, by getting it done when you are of age you do it at your own cost not mine.
/r/MensRights25/10/19 03:21 AM
6

Unfortunately it is not until you are adequately mature that you can even have the realisation that it is your preference or not. Basically what you are saying to others is because you prefer it they should have no choice in the matter either. As a person who is of age you can decide to either to do it or not, the fact you might find it an inconvenience is no justification to expect others to forgo the right to decide what their dick will look and feel like for the entirety of their life. Health…
/r/MensRights25/10/19 03:19 AM
1

I believe suicides have occurred. Unfortunately you have to control entry of people, no other way around it.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 09:02 AM
8

Self harm is clearly a tool in a significant number of these cases to force the hand of government. You are either a refugee or you are not. Follow the process.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 08:04 AM
1

I believe the figures relate to infant circumcision. In Australia non therapeutic circumcision was banned in all public medical facilities in 2007 and significantly earlier in NZ. Removing funding and ease of access plays a significant role in decline. Australia saw significant influx of Muslim migrants during their migration crisis as did the EU. What has basically occurred is the rate continues to drop for the population in general whilst in Muslim areas it increases. In terms of muslims circu…
/r/MensRights23/10/19 10:28 AM
1

Concerning AU many states have lower rates ie Tasmania is on par if not lower than NZ in the less than 5% range and WA more around 10%. States which have higher numbers of Muslims around the 20%.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 08:34 AM
1

Along with many others in NZ I don’t particularly care about being called anti Semitic especially when it is a child rights matter. They will simply have to take a seat with the people who insist they need to do the same to their daughters.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 08:30 AM
1

In terms of AU yes I think closer relations to the US may have played a role. NZ involvement in the Vietnam war only occurred due to AU relations and resulted in significant unrest resulting in change of government and withdrawal of troops. In terms of a ban we don’t particularly care about criticism from the US or Israel. Au is about a decade behind us in terms of decline with over 80% of male teens and children not circumcised.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 08:11 AM
4

I think the UK certainly played a role but the decline was prompted by legitimate study that showed from a medical perspective little benefit. Medical practitioners had no obligation to perform it and when the funding was withdrawn they had no motivation either. It was perhaps a number of variables that saw the success of decline ranging from within the medical colleges through to social unrest and counter culture movement. The practice was never favoured but the Maori either who viewed it as a …
/r/MensRights23/10/19 01:51 AM
4

Circumcision is very unpopular in NZ with only about 5% who still do it to there children. NZ at one time had the highest circumcision rates of all English speaking countries. Decades ago we abandoned the practice in favour of affording the right to our sons. Regardless of virtually all fathers at one time being circumcised collectively we said no more. We would eat the OP alive.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 12:58 AM
3

Determining what someone else’s genitals will look and feel like for the entirety of their life because of culture, tradition or religion is immoral. We being the ones who prevent you from doing it to your daughters won’t stop until your sons are afforded the same protections.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 12:52 AM
3

all good except for your insistence only your male children must have a dick that you approve of.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:33 PM
3

hahahah
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:31 PM
2

I bottle fed all of my children so their mother could recover from c sections. Never felt tempted to modify their genitals as a result.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:19 PM
1

I forgive you but your son may not go to sleep
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:09 PM
2

open the door then?
/r/MensRights22/10/19 11:51 AM
2

I’ve made my point (edit) happy reading
/r/MensRights22/10/19 11:06 AM
2

I have four children and do this because of them I don’t give a fuck about your dick you idiot
/r/MensRights22/10/19 10:54 AM
6

it is odd how very few males latter choose it, I can only assume many schedule it but low and behold an overtime opportunity comes up at work
/r/MensRights22/10/19 10:21 AM
2

Don’t underestimate your ability to exact change, you submitted your view which is more than what many are prepared to do.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 09:17 AM
6

Nothing to do with what your dick looks like, frankly I don’t think anyone even cares. There are two arguments that typically fall out from circumcision discussion being “my dick is better than your dick” and the other being “don’t permanently modify my dick without my permission”. Basically when you try to make the first argument when the topic is the second one you look like a superficial asshole, thus the downvoting which I am also about to do.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 09:11 AM
1

I bet you couldn’t even give an account of what those benefits are supposed to be other than husband insisted.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:33 AM
3

As I said no pediatric society on earth including the AAP recommends you do it to your child because the benefits from a “medical” perspective are not great enough. What ever reasoning you have convinced yourself of it’s not reality from a medical perspective which only leaves cosmetic which is immoral.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:29 AM
3

You were also the one who basically said your husbands grandfather placed it into his head that it is necessary, that is brain washing. I am only responding to the things you are stating being regret held not just by you but also your mother in-law? Then in the space of one evening going in hard as pro circumcision mommy. Well you will have to do it to your future sons won’t you, that’s the way it works have to have them all matching....
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:24 AM
3

I am being blatantly honest and as per my other post your thinking is completely backwards.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:18 AM
3

That is odd because four odd posts ago you were saying you were still not sure if you did the right thing. I guess that regret comes as quickly as it goes for you.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:17 AM
3

Enjoy the periodic resurgence of regret, that is your conscience speaking to you.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:11 AM
3

You believe the health benefits are sufficient to “permanently modify your child’s genitals” but feel your son should be allowed to decided for himself if “he does it” to his own son. You have got it completely backwards. Your son should be deciding for himself if he wants it done to “himself”. I find it very odd that you feel the benefit is so great that you can decide for your son but not great enough that you should insist he does it to his sons. Your strength of conviction does not support d…
/r/MensRights22/10/19 08:05 AM
3

Inflicting pain upon a newborn because of a cosmetic procedure that offers nonexistent benefits is absolutely disgusting. Not something I would even consider doing to my own children
/r/MensRights22/10/19 07:56 AM
4

It is nothing more than conforming to what you consider to be a social norm which for the US is almost solely cosmetic. No Pediatrics society on earth recommends infant circumcision including the AAP so your research must have been very selective. And yes it is brainwashing when you use justifications such as hygiene or nonexistent medical conditions as an excuse.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 07:50 AM
3

Also just as a side note, you do realise that policy the AAP released claiming the “benefits outweigh the risks” expired two years ago? They couldn’t renew or reissue it because of new evidence of potential harms pain causes to newborns. Basically they haven’t had a valid policy for two years now.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 07:41 AM
2

I’m from New Zealand and at one time 95% of all males were circumcised and now only 5% are stupid enough to do it to their children. That is a lot of fathers and medical practitioners saying no not necessary for my sons. It’s been many decades of abandonment of this shitty practice and guess what? We have healthier children and people in general than even the US. If the pain you obviously caused to your “newborn” which you would have been very aware of if you were doing the aftercare was not eno…
/r/MensRights22/10/19 07:34 AM
3

It makes no difference to me if someone is circumcised or not, I’m not anti circumcision I am pro the protection of children from having it imposed without choice. I couldn’t care less if someone is happy they were or choose to be circumcised. I do know a number of men irl who have told me they hate their parents for doing it to them.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 04:46 AM
2

Many men apply the same logic in that if they don’t impose it upon their own sons they are somehow admitting they are less or inferior. At the end of the day it is a child rights matter and has little to do with sexual enjoyment. I hear many people say “but we have to make decisions for our children” however the majority of children circumcised would never even need to be for medical reasons. If in the very rare case you had to have this done to your child as a last resort for medical reasons th…
/r/MensRights22/10/19 04:37 AM
4

It’s a shitty thing to do to a child. The issue is at the time you did it there was no medical need and statistically (0.3%) there never would have been. The moment it is done the potential risks and complications are realised. All to look the same as daddy. Now your husband can drill it into the mind of your son that he must do it to his sons as well. It is a shitty cycle for weak superficial sub human thinking. Here is the advice provided to parents from the largest children’s hospital in Aust…
/r/MensRights22/10/19 04:04 AM
4

If you held down an adult male and circumcised them against their will it is highly likely they would view the injury as a mutilation as would the judicial system. Some draw a likeness to this and a baby being strapped to a board and subjected to the same. What other things do you just do because it is just the done thing? Very low IQ indeed.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 04:01 AM
2

It is generally only women who subject their sons to it that have to make such claims. The thought that they have done something harmful to their child for the most superficial of reasons eats them from the inside out.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 03:57 AM
2

What exactly does that mean and what relevance does it have? If you are okay that you didn’t have a choice in the matter would it concern you if further changes were made without your permission? Or now that you are all grown up would you like a choice?
/r/MensRights22/10/19 03:55 AM
2

Fgm occurs in the US and attempts to popularise it were made by the same people promoting male circumcision. Many scream apples and oranges when confronted with comparisons between the two with the critical error being FGM is not defined as the removal of the clitoris it is defined as any injury.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 03:53 AM
2

One of the most common reasons as to why people think like this women is because they either have or intend to subject their male children to it. Because it is such a shitty thing to do to a child those who impose it feel a strong need to justify it by any means possible including ridicule. No parent likes to be told something they are doing to their child is harmful especially when it is for cosmetic reasons only. These people disgust me.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 03:50 AM
2

Men women boys and girls and everyone else in between suffer to some degree. I am a male so some men’s rights issues are better known to me than others. Supporting the issues of one gender at a given time does not have to equate to dismissal of others. That is my view
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:31 AM
9

He should have posted his query on r/New Zealand, would have been interesting to see the responses.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:24 AM
5

I don’t consider myself a men’s rights advocate as such, more so a human rights and children’s rights advocate. Hypocrisy and double standards exist right across the board and my role is to highlight that fact in the hope of change occurring.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 01:20 AM
2

In the US the vast majority are done for just about any reason they can think up, anything but solely cosmetic because that would make them look superficial and backward.....
/r/MensRights22/10/19 12:19 AM
2

If circumcision was not engrained into some religions the practice would have been banned a long time ago. The matter was not addressed during the period of fgm laws being formulated because of the extent the religious lobby has corrupted political systems and the likelihood the whole process would have stalled. Every year more countries are attempting to specifically restrict the practice and once it takes hold like falling dominos this practice will collapse.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 12:06 AM
1

Circumcision is not mandatory in Islam although it is preferred or seriously encouraged. Not a single mention of it in the Koran only in the Hadiths as is fgm. In addition the rules state that for those converting if they feel it will cause them harm they are not required to do it. In terms of Jews many within orthodox circles don’t even consider converts as true followers of Judaism or Jewish circumcised or not and many simply don’t follow the religion at all. Last I checked human rights conven…
/r/MensRights21/10/19 11:10 PM
3

And? I am simply proving a point that religious membership can still be held in the absence of permanently modifying the genitals of your child. You could still seek circumcision however you would only be permitted to have it done to yourself. In NZ Pacific Islanders that circumcise often have it done during teenage years and Islam doesn’t even stipulate an age when it must be done. A significant proportion of Jews globally are not even religiously observant. As I said religious lobbies don’t ow…
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:32 PM
2

Common outside of religious demand? The practice is in decline and has been for decades outside of having religious membership forced upon you as a child.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:20 PM
3

Given the choice between affording the same protections to “all” children and appeasing some barbaric religious practice performed by less than 1% of the population I know which choice most will make. Most don’t even care if you call them anti Semitic or islamophobic, these religions and their lobbies are simply not significant enough. We would have more members in the mongrel mob than all the Jews and Muslims put together.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:14 PM
2

SA is not the only circumcising country to see high prevalence of HIV. To many variables at play that shadow circumcision to the point of redundancy.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 09:13 PM
1

Yes very true also China and Russia
/r/MensRights21/10/19 05:09 PM
1

As I said the need is always likely to exist but to what extent would you prefer?
/r/MensRights21/10/19 05:06 PM
4

Well I have spoken to a number of Jews and Muslims that don’t circumcise their sons for the same reasons many others don’t do it. The point is it is possible to hold membership to religion without having to impose it by force upon your children.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 05:03 PM
1

Yes very true
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:55 PM
2

No Israeli / NZ dual citizens in our government that I am aware of.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:54 PM
15

I'm just siding with the Jews and Muslims that think it is abhorrent. Whataboutthat
/r/MensRights21/10/19 01:13 PM
2

In that instance the question of ethics has been answered then but should still be a choice. If the child is viable the mother may wish to forgo her life for the child.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 11:36 AM
12

Jews and Muslim exist that don’t circumcise their sons so how do they fit in?
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:48 AM
3

South Africa
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:47 AM
2

Factually
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:34 AM
5

South Africa is still a country is it not and they have banned it, I can’t help the fact that they apply it poorly at least they have a law. Even the BMA guidelines concerning circumcision state it can’t be forced upon children if the child says no. Parents have to actually explain why they want it done. Shitty ethics but ethics none the less.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:25 AM
7

South Africa illegal to be performed prior to the age of sixteen numerous countries with public healthcare systems banned within the confines of their facilities. Majority of Nordic, EU and pacific practitioners simply refuse to perform it. Germany is hardly well placed to impose restrictions given their history. Not surprised they gave in to religious demand. Outside of religion few would be doing it to their kids there however. Iceland sees many American tourists who contribute to their econom…
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:09 AM
10

There is a focus upon making many of our laws gender neutral at this time and genital integrity is a big part of that. They can only ignore the inequality that the practice represents for so long. If this matter was dealt with through referendum I am confident some would be sharing their disappointment with those who think FGM is a requirement of culture and religion. In Australia and New Zealand the practice is banned in all government hospitals and has been for some time. Cultural, traditional…
/r/MensRights21/10/19 09:45 AM
8

The need for abortion to occur is tragic in itself. I struggle to find a position that I am comfortable with either which way. I feel we should be investing more in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies to begin with although the need is likely to always exist.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 09:25 AM
10

The just about is really only the US at this stage and they are likely to be the last ones standing on the matter. At this stage I will settle for it being banned in my home country.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 09:08 AM
21

I am simply not prepared to make an exception because of some barbaric religious practice being demanded by a handful of people.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 09:07 AM
48

At one time the circumcision rates were 95% around the conclusion of ww2 followed by decline from 1950 and then abandonment around 1970. Only about 5% still doing it being largely comprised of those from Pacifica a handful of Jews and Muslims and the odd fanatical low IQ traditionalist. We are primed to ban the practice.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 08:09 AM
47

Only around 5% of parents do it to their children in NZ and that has been the case for decades.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 07:55 AM
187

She would have very few options if she came to New Zealand where most males are afforded the right to genital integrity. Having said that the matter must still be solidified in law.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 07:27 AM
5

That is unfortunate, you would think given how keen some medical practitioners are to remove a foreskin they would have adequate response when something such as this occurs. This is why it shouldn’t be done in the first place.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:36 AM
2

Steroid creams actually soften the skin to allow greater ease in stretching. Having said that I am not a urologist or a doctor which is why I suggested seeking medical help.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:24 AM
6

Well done for having the courage to raise this issue and in turn raise awareness as to why this is a poor decision to make on behalf of a child. I would recommend seeking medical help to see what options may be available to you. Steroid creams may be an option to help stretch the skin that is left. Good luck to you I hope things improve.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:08 AM
6

There are far to many countries that don’t circumcise and have health and life expectancy indexes that surpass the US and other cutting cultures by a country mile. Basically the benefits that are claimed are simply not relevant to the grand majority. People are not comfortable outright stating its for cosmetic reasons which would be deemed immoral so they need bs to ease their conscience. Pretty pathetic
/r/MensRights20/10/19 04:14 AM
2

Circumcision of children for religious reasons amounts to forced membership which is not permissible.
/r/MensRights19/10/19 11:39 PM
3

It's not just feminists who think like that, if it was the practice would already be prohibited. Reality is one of the greatest risk variables of being subjected to circumcision is the father being circumcised.
/r/MensRights19/10/19 11:34 PM
10

Other than the ME the US is likely to be the last one standing concerning this matter. I expect some country will eventually have the courage to ban it then many others will follow.
/r/MensRights19/10/19 11:21 PM
7

One is a matter of the suffering of animals the other is a children’s rights matter that for many becomes a men’s rights issue. Both are motivated by religion or tradition.
/r/MensRights17/10/19 08:08 AM
3

Fair enough, I’ve not encountered a lot of this personally but can see how it would be a significant annoyance
/r/MensRights16/10/19 11:37 PM
2

Lodge a complaint and get them banned
/r/MensRights16/10/19 11:27 PM
1

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf This includes permanently modifying the genitals of a child on the basis of religion.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 11:22 PM
2

One of the many issues with non therapeutic circumcision of infants is at the time it is performed there is no medical necessity prompting it and statistically (0.3%) there never will be. However the moment the procedure is performed the potential risks and complications are realised. In terms of consent many try to say but parents need to make decisions for children. If you as a parent had to do this to your child as a last resort due to medical complications then yes that would be one of those…
/r/MensRights16/10/19 11:20 PM
5

New Zealand may have to step up to the plate if the initiative can not gain momentum in the EU.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 10:59 PM
5

Men’s rights? Women’s rights? Given we can’t even extend equal rights to both male and female children I feel we are best to focus on human rights.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 11:01 AM
5

Many double standards. So our societies instil in males that they are the protectors of sovereign right and liberty and are expected to kill and be killed in the most brutal of ways. Be without emotion and fore go the right to self and then have our gender shat on because the product of this expectation does not fit? We can’t even cry when we hurt without feeling shame.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 10:52 AM
27

Welcome. It is amazing what double standards can be realised as a result of relative protracted peace. All major war efforts have been coupled with the conscription of young men who then give their lives like they have less worth than a five cent piece. This fact has translated to disposability of males from cradle to grave in most societies even in peace times.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 10:44 AM
6

Outside of rare medical cases it’s completely unnecessary. In New Zealand it was at one time 95% and now it is 5%. We have a life expectancy that exceeds most if not all circumcising cultures including the US so unless you live in a bubble all the pro claims are simply bullshit we along with all the other nations who don’t do it are living proof.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 10:05 AM
6

The practice was abandoned where I am from decades ago and low and behold the sky didn’t fall in. Even from a religious perspective unacceptable as it represents forced membership.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 10:00 AM
9

Good power to them
/r/MensRights14/10/19 10:01 AM
2

I’m not disputing the study I was simply correcting your statement that “the foreskin doesn’t retract until sexual maturity”. The correct statement would have been - In a small percentage of cases the foreskin may not become fully retractable until sexual maturity which is considered normal. It is important to be as correct as possible not a reflection on you but outside of reading the study a person uninformed would walk away thinking it can’t be retracted until late teens.
/r/MensRights09/10/19 12:54 AM
2

The foreskin can retract from early infancy in many cases, sexual maturity has nothing to do with it. The ability to retract varies per child at different ages which is why the child is the only one who should be doing it. You should start giving instruction to self retract around age four.
/r/MensRights09/10/19 12:22 AM
2

It’s simple you are only required to clean the exterior of the genitals during infancy and when the child is around the age of four you get them to retract it themselves and just rinse with water. The foreskin may not become fully retractable until 10-14 years of age which is also considered normal. The child is the only one who should retract it because they will not inflict harm or cause pain to themselves. That is all that is required other than a few prompts periodically to make sure they ar…
/r/MensRights09/10/19 12:16 AM
0

There is typically two arguments that fall out from discussion concerning circumcision. One is “my dick is better than your dick” and the other “don’t permanently modify my dick without my permission”. Sadly one of these arguments likely born from guilt and insecurity occurs all to frequently at the cost of the protection of children. Having said that there is body shaming occurring on both sides of the fence which I see as being childish and pathetic.
/r/MensRights07/10/19 09:08 PM
1

I gathered that. I always add pineapple to my pizzas
/r/MensRights07/10/19 11:47 AM
2

If you feel you are fine as you are that is all that matters. I don’t want to tell you that you are missing out on anything because that could be interpreted as me trying to make you feel less, I have no interest in that occurring. But as you asked, if you review the journey of adults in subs who have had circumcision later in life often for medical reasons they will often state the following. When will the unbearable sensitivity stop meaning stimulation to the glands by clothing in particular. …
/r/MensRights07/10/19 11:45 AM
1

I found the pineapple reference to be very regrettable...
/r/MensRights07/10/19 10:14 AM
2

Mate if you were a baby at the time all you know is what you are told. As I said circumcision doesn’t get performed on premature babies least of all very premature babies. The foreskin doesn’t cease to form because you are out of the womb. What does occur is genital deformities that may require surgical correction. The issue that many have with circumcision being performed on children is in the majority of cases there is no medical condition prompting it and statistically there never would be. I…
/r/MensRights07/10/19 07:41 AM
2

Unless it prevented you from urinating unlikely. As I said circumcision is basically prohibited to be performed on premature babies because it presents as a significant risk to them. Perhaps you are not recalling the event correctly after all it was probably a very long time ago.....any type of procedure such as that simply does not occur
/r/MensRights07/10/19 06:14 AM
1

Agree, urinary tract possibly, bladder? Probably not.
/r/MensRights07/10/19 05:29 AM
2

Here is the advice the largest children’s hospital in Australia provides concerning circumcision. They deal with the ailments of children day in and day out and won’t even perform it in their facilities. http://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/factsheets/male_infant_circumcision-en.pdf How does this compare to advice provided in some American hospitals?
/r/MensRights06/10/19 10:55 PM
2

Prematurity is the one thing that should have prevented you from being circumcised. Who ever did it placed your life at significant risk. I would have a problem with that.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 10:46 PM
9

Where I am from neonate circumcision rates were at one time 95% and now they are 5%. The high rate occurred during the latter stages of ww2 on the basis of syphilis prevention and a lack of sanitation in the trenches. The rate progressively declined around 1950 and abandoned by 1970. It was basically a preparation for your male child to efficiently fight and die in war and it still being practiced is testimony to the male disposability issues we are faced with today.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:15 AM
5

It is a breach of human rights to force religious membership upon children, that includes permanently modifying a child’s genitals.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:03 AM
2

Would you have an issue if someone decided to make further modifications to your dick to make it cleaner or would you like to have a choice this time?
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:02 AM
2

I have no issue with it as a last resort from a medical perspective or with consent from the individual. Numbers are small and likelihood rare but sometimes it may be necessary and even then the least amount should be removed to resolve the problem. I’m not anti circumcision I am pro the protection of children. There is a difference between doing it in response to medical complaint as opposed to prevention of a complaint you are not likely to ever have. I certainly have no interest in belittling…
/r/MensRights06/10/19 06:45 AM
7

My people have existed in the pacific for 7,000 years and never resorted to this practice to prevent anything. Perhaps it was the absence of a goat herding wizard telling them to do it.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 01:58 AM
33

I think many if not most that live outside of cutting culture do call it out when they see it. Doing this to a male baby because it is a sexual preference of some is more than weird, it’s absolutely disgusting.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 01:52 AM
4

Agree and factually correct
/r/MensRights03/10/19 10:40 PM
2

Some babies don't cry during the current method because an analgesic is correctly applied. Do you seriously think the baby crying or not should determine if you can modify a baby's genitals or not? "Between the inner and outer layers of the foreskin is a unique structure they call a “ridged band” that contains “specialized nerve endings". This is the part removed during so called biblical circumcision. In addition as per the UNCRC you are not supposed to be forcing religious membership upon chil…
/r/MensRights03/10/19 10:21 PM
3

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” This includes permanent modification of a child’s genitals. Regardless of the so call biblical method being less extensive than the current form it should still not be viewed as permissible. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf
/r/MensRights03/10/19 11:15 AM
8

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” This includes permanently modifying a child’s genitals on the basis of religion. If you feel your religion affords you the right to determine membership on behalf of a child you fall outside of the thinking of the majority. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionali…
/r/MensRights02/10/19 01:15 AM
8

Circumcise them at birth so that they are prepped and ready to die is some pointless war for you.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 08:39 AM
3

Agree, simple fact of the matter is it is illegal to perform even a ceremonial pinprick to the genitals of a female which represents a gross gender inequality and a breach of child rights.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 06:02 AM
3

The point is some forms of FGM are comparable and in actual fact less invasive than what many male infants are subjected to on a whim. One is illegal the other is not. One is permissible because of the religious, cultural and traditional beliefs of parents and the other prohibited irrespective of the beliefs of parents. It’s hypocritical
/r/MensRights17/09/19 08:02 AM
2

She was not right she was a man hating bitch
/r/MensRights17/09/19 07:57 AM
4

Me personally I am more of an advocate for human and children's rights as opposed to gender specific rights. I also support gender specific rights as they can be a vehicle for highlighting disparity. So why do we need gender specific rights forums and what are good arguments as justification for their existence? I think many issues we face are gender specific and being able to share our experiences concerning this has value from a support and learning perspective. Our current era being one of pr…
/r/MensRights14/09/19 09:58 AM
4

Pewdiepie deliberately made mention and claim of donation to the ADL as a part of his 100mil video for good reason. They tried to destroy him as they have to many many others, he wasn’t trying to appease them he was deliberately highlighting them to millions of people. Even a very basic investigation into the ADL shows the illegitimate nature of their agenda. He was basically prompting wide spread condemnation of them and rightly so.
/r/MensRights13/09/19 01:39 AM
9

It doesn’t and it isn’t.
/r/MensRights13/09/19 12:01 AM
7

In terms of the Iceland ban proposal it simply needs a rewrite and resubmission due to a couple of shortfalls they failed to address. Simple fact of the matter is if the proposal to restrict non therapeutic circumcision on children was put forward as a referendum multiple countries would landslide this practice into history.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 11:56 PM
1

So basically you are a cunt.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 11:14 PM
1

You sound like a cunt, get some help or perhaps have a break from reddit.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 01:54 PM
1

Skip your meds?
/r/MensRights12/09/19 01:38 PM
1

It’s a scam and not a system or mentally I would be prepared to live under. 44 million without healthcare coverage does not sit well with me especially when obscene prices are being demanded by practitioners and insurance companies alike.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 10:48 AM
1

In terms of conscience yes. The average cost without insurance for a neonate is in the vicinity of $400-700 and progressively goes up in price dependant on age. If covered by insurance you pay for your policy over the period of the year and may incur a small fee when you claim. The price will be negotiated between the insurance company and the medical practitioner and is what ever it is.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 10:05 AM
4

The restriction of non therapeutic circumcision being performed on male infants and children has nothing to do with religious rights. The right to freedom of religion is simply one element that falls under the umbrella of “human rights”. This issue is a children’s rights matter that will never be resolved by the cultural, traditional or religious beliefs of parents. Protections have already been afforded to female infants and children regardless of parents beliefs and eventually the same will be…
/r/MensRights12/09/19 09:23 AM
10

Claiming rape 3.5 weeks later would not be considered very credible. In order to have any real chance of prosecution in that circumstance she would need to have video evidence or one or several witnesses. What she won’t have is your DNA, semen etc which in the case of rape being reported promptly would have been collected by forensics. Tell her to fuck off and die she doesn’t have shit other than the fear you feel.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 09:13 AM
1

They? You mean parents? Decline in circumcision occurs generationally many of those that had their first sons circumcised continued to do so for their future sons. It wasn’t banned however significantly less doctors performed it and the parents just paid out of pocket. The larger change occurred when their sons had children because new parents free of the guilt of having done it in the first place are better placed to say no.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 02:21 AM
1

Not having the money to pay for circumcision and not being able to find someone to perform it are not that dissimilar.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 02:15 AM
1

Incorrect the action came from the governing medical colleges and then enacted by the individual doctors.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 02:14 AM
4

I disagree, if I consider the case of New Zealand who had at one time the highest circumcision rates of all English speaking countries being 95% and then saw a decline to the current rate of 5%. This decline was almost solely driven by doctors in the initial stages whom refused to perform the procedure on the basis it was medically unnecessary and breached their Hippocratic oaths. This prompted the withdrawal of funding for the procedure and a process of education that further made the practice …
/r/MensRights12/09/19 02:01 AM
1

By comparison to the likes of the US it could be viewed as being such however no system is completely socialised. Even a system that is 50% public and 50% private see dramatic decline in non therapeutic circumcision.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 01:51 AM
1

In my experience it is in fact where I am from non therapeutic circumcision is banned in all publicly funded facilities.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 01:44 AM
1

Most parents don’t pay $7000 their insurance company does.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 12:04 AM
2

It makes sense money is a key motivator that should be obvious. Countries that have socialised healthcare systems have virtually all withdrawn funding for non therapeutic circumcision. As a consequence circumcision rates plummet to the point of abandonment. The same is experienced in the US in the states that don’t offer coverage. The cost of the procedure when covered by insurance is irrelevant to the parent because they are not paying out of pocket so is not even a consideration.
/r/MensRights12/09/19 12:03 AM
5

That is not the case nor will stop it from occurring. You can only claim bigotry for so long before the majority determine that it is you that is excluding yourself as opposed to the whole world excluding you. Circumcision as a practice has enjoyed historical popularity in western culture however the last five decades has seen decline and abandonment of that practice. The reason for this abandonment has come from our strengthened understanding of rights to be afforded along with what we see as e…
/r/MensRights11/09/19 02:03 PM
4

Too bad? I have no doubt those who did the equivalent to their daughters for the same reason at one time thought the same. We changed that and will afford the same protections to male infants regardless of the beliefs of any religion. Human being first and all the rights we collectively determine to be afforded, religion second.
/r/MensRights11/09/19 12:28 PM
2

“Article 14 of the UNCRC says that children and young people are free to be of any or no religion. Their parents can help them make decisions around religion, but: a parent can't force a child or young person to adopt a religion.” https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf This includes permanently modifying a child’s genitals on the basis of religion. Stop breaching the rights of children.
/r/MensRights11/09/19 06:14 AM
2

Styx got it right
/r/MensRights11/09/19 06:12 AM
2

The pressure is mounting and the religious groups know it. Most countries have ratified the UNCRC which explicitly stated parents are not permitted to force religious membership upon their children which includes circumcision of children on the basis of religion. It is just a matter of time before more respond.
/r/MensRights11/09/19 03:12 AM
2

In the AU and NZ it has been banned in all public healthcare facilities. Canada has withdrawn all funding for it. Iceland and Denmark will try again this year and then Norway etc will follow rapidly after
/r/MensRights11/09/19 03:01 AM
2

Sweden
/r/MensRights11/09/19 02:58 AM
2

It already has in some places and more will follow
/r/MensRights10/09/19 10:52 PM
3

If someone says FGM should not be illegal I consider them to have a mental deficiency consistent with retardation and I will say so.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 07:01 PM
2

Consider yourself pardoned and my use of the term retard was accurately applied so fail to see what point you are trying to make.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 06:59 PM
2

Well you are a fucking retard then and thankfully in the very very small group of the minority. We the majority are going to ban it for male children just like we did for female children.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 06:41 PM
3

The problem is when non therapeutic circumcision is performed there is no medical need prompting it and statistically there never will be a need. However the moment it is performed the risks and potential complications are realised immediately. This is why it isn’t recommended as a preventative measure for health. From a traditional, cultural or religious perspective it is not something that should be without choice either. Collectively we agree that it is prohibited to do the same to females ir…
/r/MensRights10/09/19 06:08 PM
6

So if someone else decided that you might benefit from further changes to your dick to make it look nicer would you have a problem with that or would you like a choice? Also we have collectively agreed that you can not do the equivalent to a female infant irrespective of the traditional, cultural or religious beliefs of the parents so why the hell do you feel you should get a pass if you do it to a male infant?
/r/MensRights10/09/19 02:58 PM
4

That's odd I'm surprised you didn't just copy and past the same comment again. Do you seriously think that weak argument you put forward justifies subjecting male infants to this? Grow some balls
/r/MensRights10/09/19 02:36 PM
5

Why then was it done? At 14 you would have been well within your right to state not allowing you to do it and the doctor would have had little choice. In terms of outcome it can vary dependant on the type or style performed and also the skill level of the person performing it. At 14 it is safe to say you were well into puberty which makes the outcome much more reliable than doing it to a baby. The risks and complications of circumcision are very real so when you state it has had no impact upon y…
/r/MensRights10/09/19 10:14 AM
6

From a medical perspective non therapeutic circumcision of infants is completely unnecessary and from a rights, morals and ethics perspective a complete failure.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 09:34 AM
8

In societies that don’t circumcise the true medical need is in the region of 0.3% and the majority of those circumcisions do not happen as a baby. The reason why people focus upon circumcision of babies, infants and children is because the majority of the time it is done without any medical need. The other obvious part is the child has no choice concerning what is basically a cosmetic procedure. You as a 14 year old juvenile was able to give input concerning your circumcision and would have also…
/r/MensRights10/09/19 09:30 AM
5

Seriously is that all you can do? Copy and past the same bs. What a joke you are.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 07:13 AM
6

Hygiene “With normal personal hygiene, the circumcised penis is no cleaner than the uncircumcised penis.” UTI’s “The numbers of uncircumcised boys who will get urinary infections is small. If 1000 well boys are circumcised, 8 infections will be prevented, but 20 will have a complication related to the circumcision.” The negligible benefit is only relevant in the first 3-6 months of life. STD “Circumcision does not guarantee protection from infection. Normal safe sex practices must be used to pre…
/r/MensRights10/09/19 06:17 AM
5

Would you be happy for someone else to make further modifications to your dick to make it look nicer or would you like to have a choice?
/r/MensRights10/09/19 05:53 AM
8

That policy expired two years ago because they couldn’t justify that statement.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 04:19 AM
5

Where I am from 95% of parents including myself don’t support this practice. It is well overdue for regulation and restriction as it has been with female infants and children.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 04:17 AM
4

Did you not review the two comments I made? One was in relation to the impacts of pain on the neonate and the other from the American Urological Association.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 12:06 PM
3

Would you have an issue now if your parents decided you would benefit from further modification of your dick to make it look nicer or would you like to have a choice?
/r/MensRights04/09/19 11:18 PM
4

John Krieger one of the authors of the African studies and one of the Morris crew was found to be the patent owner of a circumcision device being heavily promoted for use in Africa. This alone should devalue anything the man has stated.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 11:00 PM
3

“There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, chordee and poor cosmetic appearance. Some of these complications may require surgical correction.” “The risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective.” https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/circumcision
/r/MensRights04/09/19 10:52 PM
5

"Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update," where they stated - “exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.” They also indicated that in relation to neonate circumcision the only known effective pain management was multiple doses of sucrose which can affect neurological development. As a result their recommendation is - “every health facility caring for newborns should u…
/r/MensRights04/09/19 10:51 PM
1

There is no source because the vaccine does not impact upon fertility.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 05:26 AM
2

Wow never hear that one before. 270,000,000 doses given globally and only now I find out it causes infertility? In Australia they have vaccinated over 90% of their children seems odd they would do that at the cost of fertility.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 12:46 AM
2

I doubt there is any rules against it but I’m not going to give this stalker any more exposure that I have to.
/r/MensRights03/09/19 01:18 AM
2

@MBV-09-C this guy is a circumcision advocate from another post who feels the need to follow me around for some reason. I'm tempted to list another account he uses.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 10:36 PM
1

Stalker
/r/MensRights02/09/19 10:25 PM
1

Pm me if you have a problem stalker.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 10:24 PM
2

It’s not
/r/MensRights02/09/19 01:02 PM
14

I remember taking my little ones to preschool most days and picking them up. We would play in the class for the first 20mins puzzles what have you. Now they are adults good decent adults. Being a dad is the best thing in the world
/r/MensRights02/09/19 10:36 AM
3

Circumcision in the Phillipines is a 200 year old remnant of Islam. Ridicule is used as a tool to pressure it to be done and as a result some of the most botched circumcisions occur there often by the unqualified out of desperation. It is primitive backwardness that has been attempted to be hidden under the guise of culture.
/r/MensRights01/09/19 07:54 AM
1

Here is some detail from the AAP “Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update," where they stated - “exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.” They also indicated that in relation to neonate circumcision the only known effective pain management was multiple doses of sucrose which can affect neurological development. As a result their recommendation is - “every health faci…
/r/MensRights30/08/19 01:29 AM
3

I was familiar with the Sergey Aleshkov story and frankly it makes me sad.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 10:41 AM
7

Yes very true. The worst part I find is that the attitude of disposability is not just a man thing it’s a male thing meaning male baby, infant, child, juvenile and adult.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 10:07 AM
14

It seems protracted world peace is highlighting the extent of disposability placed on our gender.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 09:43 AM
2

“They do it when you’re a baby so you don’t remember if it really hurt or not. Later it takes a little more to heal and such. It’s kind of like docking a dog’s tail. When you do it when they are puppies, no harm done. If you wait, it’s a major surgery for the dog.” You stated the above that inflicting pain on a baby is okay because they won’t remember it. You also drew comparison between docking a dogs tail to permanently altering a babies genitals. Many countries have banned doing that to dogs.…
/r/MensRights27/08/19 12:14 AM
1

Translated “I know you are you said you are so what am I?” Are you five years old? You lack the maturity and the mental dexterity to even have this conversation.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 11:44 PM
2

There has been a shift in policy concerning infant circumcision which has moved from statements like “the benefits outweigh the risks” to “the benefits are prospective and the risks immediate”. I don’t have to change your mind about anything. The changes occurring are not in favour of the circumcision of babies and children regardless of what you think. That is why the practice has been in decline for decades now. The frequency of posts concerning this topic is an indication that it is in the fo…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 11:36 PM
3

My only interest is children both male and female being afforded the rights they deserve. I couldn’t care less about what adults think about their dicks. It would be illegal for you to do the same to a female infant. One is allowed because of the religious, cultural and traditional beliefs of parents and the other is illegal regardless of the religious, cultural and traditional beliefs of the parents.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 08:38 PM
3

If there was a medical condition that could only be resolved by it then yes that would be one of those difficult parenting decisions. Frankly doing it to a baby for no reason other than it would hurt if I had to get it done as an adult is a no balls gutless excuse. Grow some balls and stop being a weak man.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 08:35 PM
2

That is not how it works because medical practitioners in civil society are bound to work within ethical frameworks. Priority by default does not rest with the mother, this will be determine by the likelihood of survival of both mother and or child and even then in most cases consent would be required. Doctors don’t have the free will to do anything they choose other than to act within the ethical boundaries that govern their roles. The rights of the baby, infant and child are clear and detailed…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 09:56 AM
3

“In maternity care doctors are trained to protect the mother first. Always. Right now your opinion would orphan a lot of kids because I don't think you like that Maxim either. “ You will need to clarify what you mean by this because it doesn’t seem relevant? Circumcision of newborns is not harmless according to the AAP “exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.” They also indicated that in relation …
/r/MensRights26/08/19 08:43 AM
3

That is the point however. I have little doubt you as an adult would now oppose even your parents deciding to further modify your dick because as an adult the rights you enjoy prevent anyone from doing it against your will. As a parent you should feel an obligation to extend the same rights to your children where ever possible.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 02:34 AM
3

Is the question I am asking you that difficult to answer? I wasn’t asking you what you would like your dick to look like. I was asking you if you prefer to have a choice about what someone else might decide to do to it.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 02:05 AM
2

Baptism is not a permanent modification to the body. Circumcision is irreversible and membership to a religion is not. Americans have already supported laws that restrict religious liberty, it is detailed in every FGM law and legislation that exists.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 01:48 AM
5

That “loose piece of skin” is attached to a baby don’t forget. Do you think anyone would care if you did it to yourself as an adult? Painful procedures performed on newborns causes harm and the thinking you don’t remember so no harm is primitive and not consistent with what medical bodies believe. I will ask you again - Would you have any issue if someone else decided you would benefit from further modification to your dick to make it look nicer or would you like to be able to decide yourself?
/r/MensRights26/08/19 01:43 AM
3

Routine infant circumcision (RIC) in developed countries has been in decline for decades now and will continue to decline regardless of laws and constitutional thinking. Why do you think exponential decline is occurring? and That decline has already grown to the point of RIC being nonexistent in many places so why would it not be permissible to regulate the practice in order to extend the same protections enjoyed by female infants to male infants?
/r/MensRights26/08/19 12:16 AM
3

J Krieger being one of the main authors of study that promoted circumcision in Africa to reduce HIV transmission is the patent owner of a circumcision device that is being heavily promoted for use in Africa. This represents a conflict of interest that has resulted in significant monetary gain being afforded to Krieger which in itself raises deep concerns about the validity and transparency by which the studies were performed.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 11:45 PM
3

That is fine if you are glad however - If someone else felt you might benefit from further modification to your dick to make it look nicer would you have a problem with that or would you like to have a choice?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 10:19 PM
5

That is fine if you are glad however - If someone else felt you might benefit from further modification to your dick to make it look nicer would you have a problem with that or would you like to have a choice?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 10:19 PM
4

The problem that you are choosing to overlook is when routine infant circumcision is performed generally there is no valid reason for it to be done at that time. There are immediate risks and longer term complications that result from the moment the procedure is performed with the benefits likely to never be realised. This is just one example of why it fails from a bioethics perspective. The rights you hold as an adult protect you from unethical procedures being performed on you without your cho…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 10:15 PM
5

very basics Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence, non-maleficence
/r/MensRights25/08/19 01:08 PM
5

do you know what bioethics is?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 12:39 PM
6

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/AAP-Newborns-Especially-Preemies-Experience-Too-Much-Pain-During-Routine-Procedures.aspx
/r/MensRights25/08/19 12:28 PM
3

From the people that fix the problems that result from circumcision. “The American Urological Association, Inc.® (AUA) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infection and penile injury, as well as complications recognized later that may include buried penis, meatal…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 12:18 PM
6

Do you think membership to religion is something you should be able to choose for yourself?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:55 AM
20

People still inflict FGM upon female infants yet we don’t go “oh well they are still doing it so let’s just dissolve the laws”.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:45 AM
5

Collectively we have concluded what constitutes FGM from a human rights perspective and have also determined what rights should be afforded to children as a minimum (CRC) yet we need to make an exception?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:43 AM
12

The difference is there wasn’t any need to circumcise your sons at the time you did it and statistically there never would have been. If there was a medical condition that could only be resolved by it then yes that would have been one of those difficult parenting decisions. The risks and complications that result from circumcision are made immediate when it is done and the benefits likely to never be realised. The point I made was the rights you hold as an adult prevents someone from altering yo…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 04:40 AM
12

The majority of males don’t ever need circumcisions which is why the practice is and has been in decline for decades now. It’s perfectly fine you are glad but - Would you have any issues if someone else decided to apply further modification to your dick to make it look nicer or would you like to have a choice?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 02:22 AM
13

Get a circumcision then. I don’t know anyone who has had the issues you are describing and 95% of the population are not circumcised here.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 02:19 AM
1

Males have been sent to fight and die in our wars for an eternity. In western cultures it took two world wars to allow circumcision to be popularised and its been in continuous decline since the conclusion of ww2. Where I am from neonate circumcision was 95% at one time now it is 5%. This happened irrespective of laws and it will continue to decline regardless of regulation. Communities are not as isolated as they once were, we are global communicators now and less vulnerable to the advice of th…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 09:43 PM
0

It seems obvious to many people now. Seventy two years has passed since the declaration of human rights was ratified, a relatively short amount of time. I’m optimistic
/r/MensRights24/08/19 08:41 AM
5

Perhaps seek the records of your birth to confirm your condition at that time, how the procedure was done with detail such as analgesics or no analgesics. If there any anomalies such as being underweight, premature or anything that should have prevented them from doing the procedure you might be able to build a case. Most recent recommendations concerning neonate pain management states it causes harm and should be limited.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 08:03 AM
3

Every attempt to regulate the practice has been stifled by lobbying from religious groups who claim it excludes them from societies. Regulate meaning prohibited to be done to a minor without absolute medical necessity. From there it becomes a political problem that no one has had the balls to resolve yet. Greenland and Denmark were the most recent attempt last year and that may still progress in time. There is no valid justification not to regulate its purely political. Once one country does it …
/r/MensRights23/08/19 06:31 AM
2

The KNMG circumcision policy is the most anti circumcision policy that exists and the most pro human rights focused as well. I’m pretty sure only absolute medical necessity is used outside of religious demand and even that has been discouraged. I would say that Denmark has been slow to legislate the CRC and they are not on their own concerning that. It takes time all global movements do. Chin up
/r/MensRights22/08/19 09:56 PM
2

I discourage those who present with generalised hate of women, men or children. Hating someone because they have said or done something that is abhorrent I understand but hating someone because of their gender I consider that unacceptable.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 01:45 PM
3

It was a generic thank you for your submission don’t bother replying to this email type response. I helped co author a submission to our national children’s commissioner which got a more promising response of we will be considering this matter in the near future. It was a seriously well crafted document. Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) if your country has ratified it there are some serious obligations that can be thrown in their face. Their fear is religious lobby and threats of bigo…
/r/MensRights22/08/19 01:36 PM
6

Can’t I just put ten cents in the jar each time?
/r/MensRights22/08/19 09:14 AM
1

I assume the price will go up if an analgesic is applied, better make that optional to allow a competitive margin.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 02:32 AM
2

Very interesting, how much were you hoping to charge for such a procedure and is it worthy of coverage by insurance?
/r/MensRights22/08/19 02:16 AM
3

I would say that one of the most prominent arguments is the impact to newborns that occurs as a result of painful procedures such as circumcision. Just prior to the expiry of the AAP circumcision policy (two years ago) they issued an update to another policy being "Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update," where they stated - “exposure to pain early in life can create changes in brain development and the body's stress response systems that can last into childhood.”…
/r/MensRights22/08/19 02:09 AM
1

Didn’t notice that’s interesting.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 12:44 AM
1

The topic is clearly at the forefront of many people’s minds and for good reason.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 12:39 AM
2

Hard to dispute but would say there are men in equal numbers who share the same mindset.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 11:49 PM
6

I have
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:54 PM
8

The focus needs to be the rights of children as opposed to the rights of the male or the female child. A fundamental element of rights is they be afforded without prejudice and the topic creates so much controversy because it is a failing on the part of society to do just that.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:49 PM
6

It’s still a choice you make regardless of what you feel your society dictates. I have no issue with being ostracised if it means my morals and ethics remain intact.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:41 PM
2

The post got significant and rapid attention and was likely removed due to violation of rules but more so highlighting gross hypocrisy. I unintentionally received in excess of 1000 upvotes as a consequence of the things I said.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:30 PM
3

This is one of a number of subject matters I find interesting and this account is dedicated solely to my thinking concerning it. That is how I like to package my thoughts. If you find that unusual then enjoy your downvotes. Circumcision forced upon infants and children is an indicator I monitor because it gives me an insight into the extent of morality in societies. The willingness of parents to do such a thing for the reasons that have now become common speaks volumes and it draws the thoughts …
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:03 PM
1

They talk about risks and complications which I found impressive.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 08:27 PM
2

I suspect that is a variable and would add that the belief you can predetermine or determine religious membership on behalf of a child is as well.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 08:23 PM
5

agree
/r/MensRights21/08/19 01:26 PM
1

“an autonomous program”
/r/MensRights21/08/19 01:02 PM
-2

?
/r/MensRights21/08/19 12:44 PM
2

Depends where you live and is detailed in the CRC
/r/MensRights21/08/19 11:27 AM
19

I have no interest in votes
/r/MensRights21/08/19 11:26 AM
33

I speak like a normal human being that’s what is causing your confusion.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 11:14 AM
10

Cultural and societal change are the hardest to achieve but never impossible. It needs to be less about the rights of the adults or parents and more about the rights of the child. That’s the change in mindset.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:07 AM
14

In this day and age the circumcision of an infant requires the consent of both parents without which a court order is required so their superficial or submissive male counterparts do not get a free pass either.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:43 AM
27

I don’t extend the right to women to dictate that. As a consequence I’m not left using the excuse of some women prefer it as justification for doing to to my son.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:31 AM
130

It is made permissible because of the religious, cultural and traditional beliefs of parents yet doing the same to a female is prohibited irrespective of the religious, cultural and traditional beliefs of the parents. Basically a gross gender inequality due to political correctness and corruption of morals and ethics.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:03 AM
106

Frankly I wouldn’t find a women appealing if she was that superficial or shallow. Would make me question her suitability to be a mother so would pass anyway.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 07:52 AM
445

Has nothing to do with how they look has more to do with human rights violation and gender inequality.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 07:46 AM
848

Seems to be common thinking in cutting cultures
/r/MensRights21/08/19 07:43 AM
1

The AUA perhaps give the best explanation because as urologists they are the ones that have to do the corrective surgeries when the risks and complications are realised. “The American Urological Association, Inc.® (AUA) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. There are immediate risks to circumcision such as bleeding, infecti…
/r/MensRights21/08/19 06:21 AM
8

Define FGM and then you might have an opinion
/r/MensRights21/08/19 06:17 AM
1

Thanks for the above I was in cynic mode when I responded but actually see some big positives in these position statements especially the review and reaffirmation timelines.
/r/MensRights20/08/19 09:30 AM
1

You are such a cynic needletothebar, I feel very optimistic about the future on all fronts.
/r/MensRights20/08/19 09:17 AM
1

Let’s hope their taskforce is comprised of honest people this time
/r/MensRights19/08/19 09:41 AM
1

In terms of hierarchical expertise in the most relevant elements yes you would be correct however it is the AAPs circumcision taskforce that takes recipient of what ever they have to offer for analysis not the other way around. The flip flopping of AAP circumcision policy over the decades is more indicative of the balance of pro and anti circumcision view held by board members than anything to do with medical evidence if anything.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 09:18 AM
1

This collection of “statements” are similarly themed and yes they do represent those who often perform the procedure however their statements hold no in-depth analysis and are simply a regurgitation of some points made in the AAP policy. I would go as far as saying they are very very luke warm regurgitations even to the point of being accurate in detail with the exception of coverage by insurance and availability due to what ever the parent decides. The AAP is the overarching authority in terms …
/r/MensRights19/08/19 09:01 AM
2

Anaesthesia is seldom used on newborns and is in part why the AAP has had an expired circumcision policy for two years now. They couldn’t renew it because of contradictory detail concerning pain management and the harms that result from newborns being subjected to painful procedures.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 07:42 AM
1

Yes the medical body does hold very direct responsibility and should act within their hypocratic oaths and many do. But All parents who seek this for their children knowingly sign medical liability waivers that clearly detail the risks so they ultimately bear responsibility not the medical practitioners.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 06:24 AM
1

Where I am from neonate circumcision rates at one time were 95% and now it is 5%. This exponential decline occurred because doctors collectively refused to perform it so I agree with the sentiment. Having said that all of the groups I indicted share an equal responsibility as they all play a critical role. Without any one of these elements the practice falls over.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 01:31 AM
2

Here is another insight you may find interesting concerning the current situation within the AAP. The AAP release their circumcision policy in 2012 that stated “the benefits outweigh the risks”. That policy expired 2 years ago as they were unable to reissue or reaffirm it because their statement was found to be incorrect. Just prior to the expiry of their circumcision policy (two years ago) they issued an update to another policy being "Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate…
/r/MensRights19/08/19 12:00 AM
1

Totally agree Rest assured the human rights authorities need to be held to account as much as the medical bodies that promote and profit from these procedures being performed upon infants and children. Who is to blame however? Is it the scores of parents who happily sign medical liability waivers because of their superficial and shallow views on what baby genitals should look like? Is it the religious groups who lobby to stifle any attempt to oppose what amounts to a human rights violation again…
/r/MensRights18/08/19 11:52 PM
1

I agree with what you are saying, when our collective understanding of what constitutes FGM was being established from a human rights perspective the practice of non therapeutic infant circumcision was in the forefront of people’s minds. The consensus at that time was if they were to focus on both matters in unison it would prevent or seriously hinder progress. This reluctance does not mean the matter is not of concern to human rights authorities but does highlight the complexity of approach tha…
/r/MensRights18/08/19 10:52 AM
20

The AAP arguing for the practice in order to justify the continuation of infant male circumcision. Here are some excerpts from the AAP’s FGM policy released in 2010 that draws comparison. “Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West.” “The ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting.” “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enable…
/r/MensRights18/08/19 10:30 AM
8

It’s harmful The AAP release their circumcision policy in 2012 that stated “the benefits outweigh the risks”. That policy expired 2 years ago because they were unable to reissue or reaffirm it because their statement was found to be incorrect. Just prior to the expiry of their circumcision policy (two years ago) they issued an update to another policy being "Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update," where they stated - “exposure to pain early in life can create cha…
/r/MensRights16/08/19 09:58 AM
2

My understanding as per some others is the move was necessary because kids these days would rather play Xbox and watch YouTube than attend scouts. I’m an ex scout and think fondly of my experience however without this move it seems the scout movement would dissolve. Many boys lack good role models and a sense of what being male is all about. It seems our societies are doing everything in their power to dissolve us as a gender.
/r/MensRights16/08/19 02:01 AM
2

Protect your sons and daughters equally
/r/MensRights12/08/19 10:19 AM
8

Agree
/r/MensRights07/08/19 07:58 AM
2

Remove the toilet seat and hide it in the garage until your partner does her fair share.
/r/MensRights07/08/19 06:17 AM
16

That is odd. Where I am from people stopped doing this shit to their children decades ago. No health impacts experienced here. At the end of the day you wouldn’t do it to your daughters so I am at a loss as to why they feel they can do it to their sons. equality without exception
/r/MensRights07/08/19 06:11 AM
11

Why?
/r/MensRights07/08/19 05:53 AM
1

I’m sure there are many examples available that induce that emotion especially as a parent. Many people are simply unaware but sound in based upon what they know and in turn what they understand. My focus is simple, equality without exception.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 10:21 AM
1

I prefer to educate without shock but see how it may be needed in some circumstances. I will have a listen
/r/MensRights06/08/19 09:32 AM
2

One of the most prominent issues I have encountered concerning FGM/MGM discussion is most have no comprehension as to the definition of FGM or the legality associated with it. If they are civil typically I can detail the definition of FGM and in turn what is comparable, what is not and what is deemed illegal. It is very easy to identify those who deliberately misinform re FGM definition because they nearly always resort to a barrage of abuse and accusation.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 08:51 AM
1

We are on the same page then.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 08:12 AM
1

I am not unaware of the issue you are raising however the issue of MGM and FGM existed long before r/feminism and feminism in general. Where I am from neonate circumcision rates were at one time 95% and now they are 5% and largely comprised of religiously observant people now. This decline was not achieved by focusing on why some feminists are hypocrites it was more so parents being educated and both mothers and fathers acting out of conscience. The rights of the male infant not because he is ma…
/r/MensRights05/08/19 10:10 PM
2

That is true, more often than not most issues can be resolved without the need for circumcision. Residing in a place where circumcision is common will often make it the first response and in places that don’t circumcise its the last resort.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 02:57 PM
2

In that instance it’s not elective as such if considered the last resort to resolve a medical issue. Perhaps semi elective. The point I am making is irrespective of the education of the parents doing it without medical indication as this parent did is not a choice needed to be made. We are on the same page
/r/MensRights05/08/19 02:35 PM
8

Why are educated parents allowed to consent to this elective surgery?
/r/MensRights05/08/19 12:31 PM
-1

Im pretty confident kids typically have no understanding of what they have that’s an insecure adult thing.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 12:29 PM
14

Literally don’t do it in the first place. The benefits are negligible and in this instance the benefits clearly did not out weigh the risks.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 12:26 PM
1

When considering rights, a fundamental element is they be afforded without prejudice which includes gender. Equality between gender is only one element of assurance human rights are or can be afforded. I feel it is more productive to focus upon the provision of human rights to all including children as opposed to men’s or women’s rights. As an example decrying FGM and then defending the same for infant males is unproductive as it detracts from the intention being all children are afforded the sa…
/r/MensRights05/08/19 11:44 AM
1

I’ve grown a beard now so use a reputable manufacturer of scissors instead.
/r/MensRights03/08/19 08:02 AM
14

I am merely trying to illustrate how not having your genitals permanently modified without your permission is a right.
/r/MensRights03/08/19 07:30 AM
17

Let’s say me being someone other than yourself decided that you might benefit from further permanent modifications to you dick, would you have a problem with that? Would you consider it a right that I not be able to do that?
/r/MensRights03/08/19 07:20 AM
1

The starting point should be ensuring that human rights are afforded without prejudice of which gender is only one premise.
/r/MensRights02/08/19 12:57 PM
7

When considering rights, a fundamental element is they be afforded without prejudice which includes gender. Equal opportunity is only one element of assurance human rights are or can be afforded. I see this as being achievable and don’t think confining possibly of accomplishment to one element is productive.
/r/MensRights02/08/19 12:55 PM
13

I will never purchase another product of theirs ever again regardless of who owns it.
/r/MensRights02/08/19 12:50 AM
10

Here are some excerpts from the AAP’s FGM policy released in 2010. “Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West.” “The ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting.” “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.” This …
/r/MensRights02/08/19 12:07 AM
6

Here are some excerpts from the AAP’s FGM policy released in 2010. “Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West.” “The ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting.” “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.” This …
/r/MensRights02/08/19 12:00 AM
26

I will never buy their products ever again.
/r/MensRights01/08/19 11:43 AM
1

Agree
/r/MensRights29/07/19 09:08 AM
1

I would say the difference between the removal of the clitoris and the removal of the penis is one removes the ability to procreate and experience sexual pleasure whilst the other only removes the ability to experience sexual pleasure. I use the term pleasure as meaning in the most conventional way. When I pointed out this fact to a feminist she responded oh well I can still get sperm extracted from my balls :-\
/r/MensRights29/07/19 09:07 AM
3

That’s good hope it works out for you.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 09:42 AM
4

Infant male circumcision is a gross and blatant gender inequality so hypocritical that stating it doesn’t hurt anyone or anything says your eyes are closed firmly.
/r/MensRights22/07/19 05:13 AM
6

Concerning religion my understanding shared by many is that in the case of children you cannot actually determine or predetermine the religion of someone else including your own children as that requires self determination. Children can only be given direction concerning religion therefore making permanent irreversible decisions for a child like modifying genitals on the basis of religion exceeds the religious rights a parent holds. I fail to see how this makes someone a bigot. Opposing circumci…
/r/MensRights22/07/19 04:46 AM
9

How does opposing this practice being forced upon infants make you a bigot?
/r/MensRights22/07/19 04:07 AM
1

Gross gender inequality in that female infants are afforded full genital integrity rights making even a ceremonial pinprick illegal irrespective of the cultural, religious and traditional beliefs of the parents and male infants are not due to the cultural, religious and traditional beliefs of the parents.
/r/MensRights10/07/19 02:13 PM
2

It is one of the most critical elements, not only are you unable to have the procedure done in the hospital you give birth in, most if not all of the practitioners there have no interest in performing it for you. Decline of male infant circumcision occurs generationally so new parents are the most vulnerable point. The reason being if the first son is circumcised it is almost guaranteed future sons will be too irrespective of a realisation it was the wrong thing to do and even against medical ad…
/r/MensRights10/07/19 11:08 AM
2

It comes down to how much they remove which can be difficult to judge given they do not know how big you penis will become when you are an adult. Yes some of the remaining skin will ride partially over the glands but for many not far creating the situation I described. In relation to lube or methods I have tried pretty much every way conceivable. In addition the type or style of circumcision that is chosen for you may play a role, the skill or ability of the person performing it and how you are …
/r/MensRights10/07/19 12:02 AM
2

Yes I agree the last paragraph is unfortunate however by and large the information it imparts to parents is the unflattering truth and has perpetuated significant decline in the practice in addition to removing ease of access at the parents most vulnerable period. What gets me is the way some parents think they can predetermine the religion of their children. Children are irreligious by nature and can only be given direction concerning it because without self determination there is no membership…
/r/MensRights09/07/19 07:06 PM
2

Any thoughts on the fact sheet provided by the main children’s hospital in Australia?
/r/MensRights09/07/19 06:23 PM
2

Have a think about the mechanics of it. I understand that may be difficult without having a reference but the foreskin is highly mobile meaning it glides back exposing the tip fully very easily. To illustrate the difference hopefully without getting banned - Many circumcised males state that masturbation with lube is better than without because directly stimulating the tip with a dry hand can create excessive friction whilst with lube it does not. The foreskin replaces the need for lube because …
/r/MensRights09/07/19 06:21 PM
2

Count how many times they state circumcision is not available. http://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/factsheets/male_infant_circumcision-en.pdf This is a government provided factsheet.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:59 PM
2

Circumcision alters sexual function, some say for the better some say for worse. Some claim there is no impact to sexual enjoyment whilst others do however that can only truely be determined by the person experiencing it which is why the decision is best made by the person subject to it. Would you feel any different if it meant you were not experiencing sexual enjoyment to its fullest?
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:57 PM
4

In Australia circumcision without true medical indication has been banned in all publicly funded hospitals and facilities since I think 2007 and in NZ the ministry of health won’t support or contribute a cent to it even if you do need it for medical reasons. Current circumcision rates of children AU 15-20% NZ 5%. Not illegal but extremely unpopular.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:51 PM
1

Respond with the face that the author BM was a member of the Gilgal Society which was basically a circumfetish pedofile ring. The author is not motivated by the well-being of males. http://intactwiki.org/wiki/Gilgal_Society
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:45 PM
0

In Australia their HPV vaccination program is offered for free via schools and commenced in 2007 for girls and then expanded to boys in 2013. Thus far there has been a reduction of HPV by 77%. This model will soon see the eradication of cervical cancer in the AU whilst mothers in the US will continue to insist the circumcisions of their sons in the false and misleading hope of achieving the same.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:31 PM
5

In Australia their HPV vaccination program is offered for free via schools and commenced in 2007 for girls and then expanded to boys in 2013. Thus far there has been a reduction of HPV by 77%. This model will soon see the eradication of cervical cancer in the AU whilst mothers in the US will continue to insist the circumcisions of their sons in the false and misleading hope of achieving the same.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:30 PM
2

I would add that some people are attacking you for basically making the my dick is better than your dick argument.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:19 PM
2

There is nothing wrong with you being glad that you are circumcised or as an adult deciding to get circumcised. Do you think it is a choice that you should be able to make yourself however? What many oppose is it being forced upon children because it is permanent and it is done to your dick which is kinda important to most men I have come across. The medical benefits are non existent to the majority of males so what is the urgency in making the decision on behalf of someone else who may later di…
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:16 PM
1

Well said
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:52 PM
2

Why then is there no pediatric society on earth including the AAP that recommend circumcision for infant males?
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:51 PM
2

The health benefits are negligible which is why no pediatric society on earth including the AAP recommends it for male infants. So if they don’t recommend it which part do you find frustrating because they govern child healthcare? If there are no compelling medical reasons to do it what is left? Hygiene? You should be cleaning it just like your ass regardless of circumcision.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:49 PM
2

There are two arguments that typically fall out from circumcision discussion being “my dick is better than your dick” and “don’t permanently modify my dick without my permission”. One of these arguments is childish and pathetic the other a moral and ethical dilemma. Which one are you trying to make?
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:43 PM
2

The health benefits are negligible which is why no pediatric society on earth including the aap recommends it. In relation to religious demand for it you cannot actually determine the religion of someone else on their behalf as that requires self determination. Given this fact children can only be given direction concerning religion therefore permanent and irreversible decisions such as permanently modifying genitals exceeds the religious rights of parents.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:37 PM
1

Their must be more to the story because in NZ at one time circumcision rates were 95% and now they are around 5%. Irrespective of how common circumcised penises were being virtually all males the shift was achieved largely due to the advice by medical practitioners motivated by Hippocratic oath as opposed to a quick buck and parents seeing and responding to the ethical dilemma it poses.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:31 PM
2

They could only be motivated by profit or personal bias given the AAP along with all the other pediatric societies haven’t recommended it for decades. High motivation for profit at the cost of a child’s genitals is disgusting. Where my children were born circumcision was already banned in all publicly funded hospitals and facilities and was explicitly discouraged given the lack of medical necessity. Perhaps why the current rate is around 5%.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:20 PM
1

I am also not convinced it is done without the parents having a say and feel it is more likely the parents simply give in to pressure applied by the medical practitioners. Performing circumcision upon a baby without a signed consent form from the parents has resulted in significant claims made and won in court historically. I doubt it is a liability any hospital would be prepared to risk given the potential of being sued. I have heard of it happening in error meaning a paperwork mixup resulting …
/r/MensRights08/07/19 11:43 PM
1

New Zealand
/r/MensRights08/07/19 10:31 PM
3

In my experience when the tide turns the rate of decline compounds. You have the full support of countless parents who act out of conscience and ethical belief in your endeavour. The movement is global.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:55 PM
2

Current rates of neonate circumcision in AU would be around 15-20% with some states as low as 5% and in NZ around 5% and falling. It seems the majority of parents have already made their minds up. To illustrate what the rate of circumcision looks like in NZ as an example in an average classroom comprised of 20 males and 20 females on average only 1 of the males will be circumcised. When the parents of the circumcised boy say “it’s cleaner” that child is likely to be left wondering why that is no…
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:41 PM
4

There is nothing wrong with you being glad that you are circumcised or for that matter choosing to get circumcised in my opinion. Forcing it upon an infant or child is a different matter that in my mind is a gutless no balls thing to do.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:31 PM
5

No pediatric society on earth including the AAP recommends circumcision of male infants because there are no tangible benefits that result from it, that is why the practice is subject to decline.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:28 PM
4

That is certainly the case for many. In terms of genital integrity rights of male infants what I have seen in my own society is a very broad acknowledgment of the existence of that right which now sees on average only 5 out of 100 male infants subject to the practice as opposed to 95 out of 100 that it used to be. That in my mind is a significant accomplishment however far from that right being extended outside of the will of the parents.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 02:48 PM
6

Frankly I find the practice imposed upon infant males a gross inequality between our genders. In our current era such a significant focus is placed upon equality yet males can not be afforded the simple right of not having their genitals permanently modified without their permission. Fortunately the practice is in decline across the board perhaps with the exception of the religiously motivated.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 02:09 PM
3

Where I am from circumcision of infants was at one time 95% and now it is 5%. That is a lot of fathers who irrespective of being circumcised themselves decided no not necessary and no not doing it to my son. Here at least the fathers do actually care.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 09:52 AM
15

The likelihood of needing circumcision due to a legitimate medical complaint is rare. Where I am from at one time circumcisions rates of infants was 95% and now it is 5% and I have never actually heard of anyone having to get it done to resolve a medical complaint.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 09:49 AM
9

Where I am from circumcision of infants at one time was 95% and now it is 5%. Outside of religious motivation circumcision is in decline right across the board including the US where only half of male babies are subjected to it. The reality is more people these days understand it is unnecessary and without any tangible benefit. It also highlights a gross gender inequality that is not resolved by apathy born from never having a choice or the ridicule you may receive for complaining about it.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 09:46 AM
2

@brosbeforehoes Fgm is defined as being any injury sustained by the female genitals without consent or medical necessity and therefore illegal in most countries. How does a ceremonial pinprick or nick remove all pleasure?
/r/MensRights14/06/19 02:25 AM
6

Not just in the US most of our world
/r/MensRights23/05/19 03:21 PM
12

It is not mandated that you are guaranteed a choice because of religious demands of minorities. It is guaranteed for females but not males. The procedure can not even be regulated to ensure it is done by a qualified person who must apply appropriate pain relief these are only recommendations not mandated once again due to religious demands of minorities.
/r/MensRights23/05/19 09:14 AM
2

Circumcision is not a demand of Islam it is a demand of Islamic society
/r/MensRights22/05/19 11:16 PM
1

Google it then come back
/r/MensRights22/05/19 04:21 PM
3

Where I am from circumcision was at one time 95% and now it is 5%. What we have learned is that when males are given the opportunity they don’t later choose it for themselves. It is actually likely that your son and his friends if given the opportunity would not agree with you. Some say they are glad their parents did it whilst others say they hate their parents for doing it. If you found yourself hating your parents because they didn’t do it guess what you still have the option of doing it your…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:58 AM
2

Go and get circumcised see how normal you feel then...
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:50 AM
3

It’s not really that necessary so why do it?
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:48 AM
12

Don’t need to get it done later unless American, hygiene challenges I believe not experienced in NZ where I am from due to average iq of 100
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:47 AM
1

Do you understand the concept of the right to bodily integrity?
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:44 AM
2

I guess so some countries have taken that approach with reasonable success. I would not want to confuse your right to take heroine with the right of a child to bodily integrity however. One is something you feel you have the right to do to “yourself” and the other is a right you feel to do to something to “someone else”.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:42 AM
2

The right to bodily integrity or more importantly the lack of the right to bodily integrity holds much greater implication than just circumcision of infants. Circumcision and its prevalence is an indicator within society or community that highlights susceptibility of those people to ethical or moral corruption. I consider routine infant circumcision as being a social experiment gone wrong, its intention being to diminish the will of the parent when considering ethical decisions about their child…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 09:38 AM
1

I feel there are parallels that can be drawn between countries that have achieved significant decline in the practice and the potential for the same in the US. Some of the critical differences between where I am from NZ and the US? We are rated as the least corrupt country on earth so our government is less likely to be owned by the religious lobby making withdrawal of public funding done with ease simply on the basis of nonexistent health benefits. We have a public healthcare system that accura…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 08:57 AM
1

I see what you are saying and agree lumping all white people together as a whole is incorrect. Where I am from even using terms such as white and black as a descriptive for a person is frowned upon.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 04:10 AM
1

Most can not even define fgm as being anything other than the removal of the clitoris perhaps because it best serves their causes. The hypocrisy and gender inequalities concerning this are off the charts. Why do you think this is the case? Religious demand? Limited worth of the male? It looks nicer?
/r/MensRights22/05/19 03:08 AM
1

Is being white in a society with high prevalence of circumcision a contributing factor to the likelihood that you will be subject to circumcision as a baby or child? There are many other variables that play a role but in my experience the answer is yes. If I consider my own country being New Zealand where circumcision prevalence was at one time the highest in all English speaking countries the non white component being the Maori who considered circumcision culturally offensive and were therefore…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 02:49 AM
1

My initial statement where I said all white Americans circumcise their sons? I failed to provide context when I said that but did clarify later, perhaps a disconnect between my thoughts and the keypad. Of course not all white Americans circumcise their sons but would say that most certainly do. Given this fact I feel it is a variable worthy of consideration.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 02:18 AM
2

The issue with the aap is their desire to play their hand at cultural brokerage as opposed to advising from a medical perspective which is my view of their intended role. They are simply poorly placed to say what should be allowable from a cultural, religious or traditional perspective. Another prime example of why the aap should stay within the confines of their Hippocratic oaths is detailed in their 2010 female infant genital cutting policy. They state that because lesser forms of fgm are less…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 01:45 AM
2

This one former member of the original board has highlighted how the media may have misconstrued their intention based upon how they worded the abstract and I would agree that this is how many now view their overall statement being the benefits outweigh the risks implying change to their previous stance of neutrality. Having said that this limited response after four years and significant pressure globally does little to convince me of sincerity. When doing a basic search “aap circumcision” as a…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 01:08 AM
1

Can you clarify what elements of the first statement you disagree with? I may have poorly worded it initially?
/r/MensRights21/05/19 11:55 PM
2

How does the aap justify allowing parents to make the call? I would say that it is the same reason they are not concerned by any criticisms of their policy. Basically if you do criticise their policy they simply view you as being anti Semitic and islamophobic.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 06:06 PM
1

I read the response to the aap highly critical of their 2012 policy that pediatric specialist all over the world endorsed when it was issues back in 2012. I also read the further response that the aap issued in return. The aap did not retract one single word of their policy, retreat in any way or even give the impression that they did.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 05:58 PM
1

To clarify, the regions or states that have the highest rates of circumcision say in the vicinity of 80% also have the highest rates of white Americans of a similar percentage 80-95%. Other variables include coverage for the procedure via medicade and less urban / more rural settings. I would consider a cosmetic procedure covered by publicly funded health as being a privilege.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:35 PM
1

I’m not making any assumption about anything. All I have done is reviewed circumcision prevalence via region and compared that to ethic demography within the same regions. I am not specifically focusing on privilege as a variable although socioeconomic disparity between ethic groups is likely to play a role, to what extent? I would need to look closer.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:13 PM
1

What this data does not capture is the increase that occurred after the release of the aap statement in 2012. Based solely on a few articles I read some time ago increases of between 7-12% were observed. Also the decline during the 80’s in some regions is like to be in the 18 states that dropped funding via Medicade at that time whilst the remaining 32 continued to fund it. Funding by the government implies best practice irrespective of pediatric policy and whilst public funding continues in tur…
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:00 PM
1

Where?
/r/MensRights21/05/19 12:56 PM
0

Did you have a view to share or a question to ask? Surely my occasional poor grammar is less interesting that the topic of discussion?
/r/MensRights21/05/19 09:11 AM
8

Agree certainly when their is no medical indication and even then after all less invasive options have been exhausted. What’s worse is the inequality it highlights when considering all forms of fgm are illegal in most countries.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 09:00 AM
0

The statement was made in reference to white Americans so meaning all white Americans but yes you could say the term is intended to describe anyone and everyone. Are you trying to catch me on a technicality rendering all my posts null in void?
/r/MensRights21/05/19 08:59 AM
3

If you are trying to gain an understanding as to why prevalence of routine infant circumcision occurs it is relevant. If the newborn circumcision rate is 50% overall and a significant proportion of those circumcising are white and a significant proportion who don’t are non white it is reasonable to ask why. It may be simply Hispanics don’t for cultural reasons or it also may indicate socioeconomic inequalities and access to a predatory healthcare system. Not a question of race or racism necessar…
/r/MensRights21/05/19 06:02 AM
10

The high rate did occur largely due to predatory plunkett nurses who were supposed to provide neonate care but instead collected foreskins like scalps. Once they were prohibited from performing circumcision and basically preying upon new mothers often in the absence of the father and funding withdrawn the practice died. The greatest surges occurred during the world wars when the fathers were absent or preoccupied due to the war effort. Ultimately vulnerable mothers preyed upon by other women (nu…
/r/MensRights21/05/19 05:22 AM
15

Circumcision in nz peaked at around 95% on conclusion of ww2 then from 1950 slow decline commenced followed by mass abandonment around 1970. These figures are not based upon seeing dicks in showers.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 05:06 AM
2

That is true however based upon regional demographics and known circumcision rates it can be concluded the majority of White Americans universally circumcise. It is a variable that needs to be considered.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 04:56 AM
32

We are living proof that circumcision of male infants is unnecessary and those telling otherwise are lying to you.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:39 AM
52

New Zealand
/r/MensRights21/05/19 02:54 AM
53

As I said circumcision rates where I am from were 95% of all newborns now it is around 5%. That is a lot of circumcised fathers saying no not necessary.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 02:15 AM
5

Given the fact the US has been in a constant state of war may account for the fear that continues to perpetuate the practice there. Still a poor excuse given few are likely to find themselves in a protracted combat situation where sanitation is nonexistent. It is more common for drones operated from your home country to see more action than an unwashed foreskin.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 02:12 AM
11

Corralling males like cattle to permanently modify their genitals in the hope of improving health outcomes is backwards and primitive. Your view is one that you should only relate to yourself because frankly you are insulting our whole gender by implying males lack the capacity to maintain basic hygiene. Where I am from circumcision was 95% and now it is 5% with most not seeking circumcision as adults. Whilst you may think it is a good choice our experience show us that your son and his friends …
/r/MensRights21/05/19 02:06 AM
8

Big difference between an ear piercing and permanently modifying a babies genitals. Some believe babies are on sentient so you can inflict as much pain as you like without consequence. We have laws that better protect animals set for slaughter than a baby subject to circumcision. Anaesthetics is often optional, poorly applied or not used. This simply fact that it is now ingrained into the minds of many “you don’t remember so it doesn’t matter” is an indicator of ethical and moral corruption when…
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:56 AM
16

A reason not to do it is a basic protection called bodily integrity. Circumcision of infants is little more than a method to diminish the will of the parent when considering ethics concerning their children. If you are already permanently modifying their genitals at birth what harm would putting a little chip in their hand cause.....
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:50 AM
213

Where I am from circumcision was at one time 95% and now it is 5%. The women here prefer what they can get so see intact dicks as being normal. Circumcising my children because it is a sexual preference of some women is......odd and unethical
/r/MensRights21/05/19 12:45 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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