TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

were_gonna_make_it Archive

View 1 posts and 248 comments by were_gonna_make_it on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
119

Intactivismwere_gonna_make_it/r/MensRights25/02/21 11:54 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that all the claimed "benefits" and "lack of drawbacks" apply equally to "female circumcision" as proponents claim they do to the male version. Can you imagine that our society would accept and routinely promote this procedure being performed, involuntarily, at birth, on girls? The mere thought boggles the mind, doesn't it? Absolutely no one would accept the logic, the very same logic we use to justify and excuse "circumcision," if we applied it to wo…
/r/MensRights18/11/20 02:59 PM
1

Sorry to break this to you bro, but newborns do not have "phimosis" (they are actually SUPPOSED to have phimosis) and getting cut for it at birth is literally nonsense.
/r/MensRights18/11/20 02:50 PM
5

The problem is 99% of "circumcision" cases are precisely that, without consent, on children. That's like saying "I have no problem with FGM, if it's on their own free will." Like, yeah, everyone agrees that adult women can get cosmetic genital altering surgery, but that's not what we're talking about 99% of the time we talk about FGM, and we don't need to draw that distinction for everyone to understand.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 07:40 AM
1

If underwear causes pain I can only imagine what repeatedly slamming it into a vagina must feel like. I don't know why that would confuse you unless you're just trying to be a smartass. The head of the penis is very similar to the clitoris, and most girls find it very uncomfortable to have their exposed clitoris rubbing against clothing, or even to be rubbed during sex unless they're warmed up. We may not agree There's nothing to "disagree" about because it's not a matter of opinion, and you are…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 07:30 AM
2

Yeah they do man, and lots of them stretch the skin out to lengthen it and cover it all up. And uncut guys will tell you that its really uncomfortable to fully pull the skin back and have their exposed head rubbing against their underwear. But cut guys do that 24/7 and don't feel a thing. Kind of proves there's some desensitization happening, doesn't it? Guys who restore their foreskins, or who use devices that cover the glans 24/7, will tell you that once they've spent some time covered up, the…
/r/MensRights11/11/20 11:27 AM
3

Literally billions of people are perfectly fine with it.
/r/MensRights11/11/20 11:13 AM
5

Even those numbers are flawed because those studies did not use proper controls. For example, they started to track the participants as soon as they were circumcised. So the circumcised group had a period of several weeks, while they were healing, when they couldnt have sex. Also they taught the circumcised groups how to use condoms, but not the uncut group. Basically, those numbers are meaningless.
/r/MensRights11/11/20 11:08 AM
1

Right, I got it, we've already established that. What we were talking about is the specific physical changes that happen as the bodies reaction to an internal structure being permanently exposed, or when sensitive skin is constantly exposed to friction. Which is to form a protective layer of thickened skin over the affected area, otherwise known as a callus.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 01:31 PM
1

it's a completely safe procedure It has a 100% chance of loss of the foreskin and all the important benefits and functions of it. Doesn't sound very safe to me.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 10:03 AM
1

So you don't think your dick is " normal, better or even good," and you don't think it's callused. What exactly do you think it is/ what do you think happened to it?
/r/MensRights10/11/20 09:53 AM
2

Damn callused? I need to let my dick know it didn’t get the memo
/r/MensRights09/11/20 06:25 AM
7

Hey. since nobody cares when men get upset about having their dicks mutilated, maybe they will care if women get upset about it.
/r/MensRights09/11/20 03:08 AM
2

Right, so, I'm going to assume you're just misinformed and not just a troll. The glans of the penis is an internal structure, it is supposed to be covered up nearly all the time, just the inside of the mouth, or the eyelids, or the clitoris (which it is very similar to). All of these structures, if the protective sheath is removed, will absolutely callus and form a protective layer. This is a biological fact. Otherwise, they would cause extreme discomfort and pain from being exposed constantly. …
/r/MensRights09/11/20 02:57 AM
1

Mentally, if they're brainwashed into it? Maybe. Physically? Absolutely not. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21672947/ Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.
/r/MensRights07/11/20 10:57 PM
2

The difference is, when you get it done as a baby, you get to suffer through all that in silence for the first few months of your life, until the skin heals and toughens up and forms a protective callus over the newly exposed tissue, protecting it, but also desensitizing you for life.
/r/MensRights07/11/20 10:54 PM
1

I was already forced to get half my dick skin cut off, this point about bodily autonomy only applying to one gender is made up bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/11/20 06:54 AM
2

Because they can. Because they're fucking untouchable, they know it, and they want to rub it in your face and damn sure you know it too.
/r/MensRights02/11/20 06:26 AM
5

Keep stringing a bunch of words together, you might sound smart someday.
/r/MensRights27/10/20 08:27 PM
3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy This is their standard tactic, and it applies to both of your examples.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 02:38 PM
3

A good way to sum up male genital mutilation (euphemistically called circumcision), is that, if it was such a good idea, you wouldn't have to do it to babies. If all the shit they said was true, there would be lines of men out the door of the doctor's office, clamoring to have it done. The fact that there is not, and statistically the only people who it is done to (in any significant #'s) are nonconsenting infants, speaks volumes.
/r/MensRights22/10/20 06:58 PM
2

The foundation of the entire modern Western Judicial system is the idea that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free, than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 10:19 AM
3

It is a factor, but likely just a small piece of the puzzle. Male genital mutilation has been popular in the Anglosphere for over 100 years, long before any of those cosmetics came about. It started from a desire by Victorian neo puritans to reduce their son's sexual pleasure and control male sexuality (the same reason, historically, Jews have done it). By the time it became uncool to openly admit to wanting to damage someone's sexuality (around the sexual revolution) it was already a firmly ent…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 11:19 PM
3

But the collective benefit of circumcision is actually pretty scientific . Again, you go with the bullshit.
/r/MensRights09/10/20 05:05 AM
1

Ahh, so when you claim to be thankful for it, it's because you're "empowered," but when someone doesn't want it, they're delusional. Very nice, consistent logic. Why don't you reply to egalitarianfox's comment, he's already told all the ways you're factually wrong. Unless you'd rather sit here and trade insults.
/r/MensRights09/10/20 01:15 AM
0

Ccongratulations. You are wrong about literally everything. It's no surprise that you "feel empowered," when everything you think you know is bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 09:18 PM
3

I don't get what you're trying to say. What part of that is TERF and what part is intactivist? For circumcision to be a commonly accepted practice, in the first world, in the 20th century, requires several assumptions (belief in myths) about male biology. One of them is that the male genitalia are defective in their natural form. The other is that you can amputate parts of the penis without affecting it's function or sensation. Most people who support this practice hold these (incorrect) beliefs…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 04:58 PM
5

No one is denying that men shouldn't be able to choose to alter their genitalia when they are of age to make that choice themselves. Just as women are free to choose labiaplasty, etc. For themselves, once they are old enough to make that decision. The absolutely morally reprehensible part is forcing this on non consenting minors, for absolutely no reason at all. Physically, there are no benefits. They do not exist. Socially, culturally, the benefits are entirely a product of forced adaptation to…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 04:53 PM
14

That men are born with defective genitalia that require surgical correction at birth, and also that you can freely amputate any part of the male genitalia without negatively effecting it's function and sensation.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:50 PM
3

Even if phimosis is present, which can only be diagnosed after adolescence, circumcision is never the first option. There are many, less invasive alternatives, including creams and stretching techniques, and most cases of phimosis resolve themselves naturally. American doctors are very quick to push circumcision when it is absolutely unnecessary in almost all cases.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:45 PM
3

Children, especially infants, do not have phimosis. The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis until adolescence. This is completely natural, and is absolutely not a reason to mutilate him.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:31 PM
3

You would be surprised how often men have to go get circumsized later in life due to medical reasons. No I wouldn't, because I know the numbers, and it's miniscule. You're full of shit. And besides, what a horrible thing that would be, to teach a child. "Son, you can do anything! You can be a doctor, or a Navy Seal, or an Astronaut! But we don't trust you to clean your own cock, so we cut the best of it off."
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:28 PM
7

So, mutilate his dick because someday, far in the future, someone else MIGHT make fun of him. I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. I'm sorry for what happened to your son. You DID do the right thing by choosing to protect him when he was born. And what those other people are doing to him is wrong. But your experience is not in any way representative. And even if he has to go through this, he can still have full lifetime of enjoyment, and the benefits of having his entire penis. MGM (circumcis…
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:24 PM
5

That's the point though... If it's illegal to do it to your daughter, why would even consider doing it to your son?
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:07 PM
12

Why the hell does anyone think this is a good idea?? The same people who think it's a good idea to mutilate a newborn's penis.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 01:05 PM
6

Wife and I approved the procedure for both cleaning/cleanliness and appearance on our girls- not even a questionable act. No religion involved.
/r/MensRights06/10/20 05:15 PM
3

Other people are giving you information, so I won't rehash that, rather I ask you to take a little thought experiment. Ask yourself: ​ Why shouldn't women be circumcised? ​ I'm not joking here, I'm asking you to think about this question from a different perspective. That sounds ridiculous, right? I'm sure you can think of many reasons women should not circumcised. Now turn it back around and realize how equally ridiculous it is from the male perspective. In fact, let's take it a step further. Y…
/r/MensRights06/10/20 04:35 PM
4

What the fuck is an "optical change"? What don't you understand here? If something is wrong because "it harms people," then it's completely irrelevant whether or not that thing is a religious practice, as you yourself just said. If on the other hand, if we have to allow all religious practices, then it's wrong to prohibit them just because it harms people. You're trying to have it both ways, because you're a coward. You argue for it being a religious practice, but then when your same logic is us…
/r/MensRights04/10/20 03:53 PM
4

If you're going to prohibit certain religious practice but not others, based on the criteria of whether they "harm people," then sounds to me like it doesn't really matter whether or not something is religious practice, because you're already using different criteria to evaluate whether that thing is valid and permissible. Strange that you don't extend this same logic to the forced genital mutilation of children.
/r/MensRights04/10/20 03:27 PM
3

So? It's a religious ritual, why should it be forbidden?
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:59 PM
3

And what makes it a wrong comparison?
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:41 PM
3

So you agree that human sacrifice is valid, as long as it's part of a religious practice?
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:27 PM
1

Human sacrifice and slavery was a part of many religions and cultures through most of history. There is no disease that mgm prevents. It is harmful in every case. MGM remaining legal is directly unconstitutional, it is enshrined sex descrimination in law.
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:25 PM
3

gotta love people like you try to lecture like you're some sort of authority, when as soon as you open your mouth you show you have no idea what you're talking about
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:21 PM
3

r/woosh
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:20 PM
3

Almost all women who are victims of fgm report being "happy" with it, just like men. So either it "doesn't work unless it's botched " for both or you have assumptions you need to examine.
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:18 PM
3

"What would you say if they forbid Queztalcaotl worshippers to do a human sacrifice?" this is what you sound like
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:17 PM
3

Every time their bullshit excuses for their disgusting genital mutilation cult get btfo, they just make up new ones.
/r/MensRights03/10/20 09:04 PM
3

The only reason we use the safe and minimizing term "circumcision" for the male version and the term "mutilation" for the female version is because we've been socialized (brainwashed) to accept the one and not the other. It's all mutilation, and the risks are the same (in the places where they do both, which is almost everywhere that does it, outside the US)
/r/MensRights21/09/20 07:11 PM
40

Let's call it what it is. A genital mutilation fetish. These women have a fetish for genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights20/09/20 01:59 AM
11

But the circumcision trolls make frequent repulsive references to sucking off infants. The only "sucking off infants" is what Jewish Mohels do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_B'Peh_(oral_suction)) I agree, completely repulsive stuff.
/r/MensRights22/05/20 05:35 PM
3

brilliant, you convinced me
/r/MensRights19/05/20 03:13 PM
6

What's the motivation of a guy to deny the fact that he's unhappy with how his penis was mutilated without his consent?
/r/MensRights19/05/20 01:21 PM
5

It doesn't matter how low the rate is, because it is a completely unnecessary surgery, every single complication and death is completely avoidable. But there are several effects that are not considered complications, but are 100% guaranteed with every circumcision. Like I said before, it removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, removes the penises natural protection and intercourse mechanisms, and creates scarring, in every case. While not 100%, in the vast majority of infant circumcisions…
/r/MensRights16/05/20 08:14 AM
7

We recognize that there are certain decisions the parents can make for their children while they are too young to make those decisions themselves. But that is in the context of their parental responsibilities, not having ownership. And that is also why there are certain decisions parents are not trusted to make for their children. Currently in America that sphere of "acceptable decisions for a parent to make for their child" includes circumcision, for any reason. But a parent cannot choose to ge…
/r/MensRights16/05/20 08:04 AM
11

Babies are not property. They are people. They have human rights. And parents do not "own" their children, they have responsibilities to them.
/r/MensRights16/05/20 03:23 AM
16

As far as I can tell being circumcised doesn’t hurt anyone in the long run. If you're going to make blanket statements, then any type of fringe case is absolutely fair game. If even 1 child dies as a result of circumcision then your statement is completely wrong, regardless of your personal experience. And even if you are completely, 100% happy with your circumcision, the fact remains that the procedure is guaranteed to remove natural functions of the human penis, in every case. Whether or not t…
/r/MensRights15/05/20 10:45 PM
20

Completely wrong. It is heavily steeped in sexism, from it's inception. Traditional Judaism is fiercely patriarchal, and circumcision, or "The Covenant," is seen as a privilege, afforded solely to men. It is a sacrifice yes, but a sacrifice that initiates the man with Abraham's covenant with God. Women were never afforded this privilege. Though this way of thinking may seem strange to us today, circumcision was used a way to discriminate against women for the majority of the practices existence.…
/r/MensRights15/05/20 10:36 PM
1

That's exactly the point. No one gets to decide for someone else how to feel about the non consensual removal of their own body parts. So to say "I wish this had been done to me without my consent," is to also say "I wish this was done to other people, without their consent." It is no different than a woman who has a traumatizing mastectomy, and then wishes that she had been mastectomized as a child, so she wouldn't have had to do it as an adult. Because if that were possible, that would also me…
/r/MensRights14/05/20 08:30 PM
1

No offense to him, but that's a very silly way of looking at it. To put it in perspective, women in America have about a 13% lifetime chance risk of getting breast cancer. That's a much higher % chance than any man has of getting phimosis. And it is life threatening. Many of those cases will require mastectomy. Yet it would be ridiculous for a woman who had to have a mastectomy to ask why her parents did not preemptively mastectomize her when she was a child, "just in case, and so she wouldn't h…
/r/MensRights14/05/20 07:45 PM
2

there's nothing you can do about it now. You could do foreskin restoration. It takes a long time, years to complete, but many guys report very positive physical and mental benefits. Physically, increased sensation and sensitivity. Nerves can't be regrown but the natural mechanical action of the skin sliding up and down the shaft, instead of being an immobile dildo, can be restored. Plus once the hood covers up the head, and protects it from rubbing on clothes and exposure to air, the parts that …
/r/MensRights14/05/20 07:35 PM
26

Or basic human decency.
/r/MensRights03/05/20 07:51 AM
6

because Muslims have very little political capital in the west, and Jews have a lot
/r/MensRights02/05/20 02:53 AM
3

I propose a compromise, "Genital mutilation is a crime, unless it is done to a Jew." /s
/r/MensRights02/05/20 02:52 AM
3

I assume you also support Muslim's right to circumcise their daughters?
/r/MensRights02/05/20 02:49 AM
10

The Christian Bible does not say to circumcise, in fact it says the opposite. Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
/r/MensRights01/05/20 11:32 PM
2

Sure, there's always going to be people who do evil things no matter what. But how many instances does it take for something to count as "oppression"? The fact is, that if you're a woman living in the developed world, and you're not a Muslim from a first gen immigrant family from the Middle East or Africa, you are at basically 0 risk for FGM. Compare that to about 50% of American men, and up to 90% of men in certain parts of the country, who are victims of MGM. Even if we talk worldwide, the vas…
/r/AntiFeminists30/04/20 10:06 PM
3

What are trying to say? "Female circumcision" is often euphemistically used to refer to FGM. And this chart is obviously about the USA, a country where you could probably count the # of female circumcisions per year on your fingers. Because it's illegal and no medical professional will offer it (to a minor). So it's a blatant case of institutional sex based discrimination. That's the point.
/r/AntiFeminists30/04/20 09:46 PM
3

Doesn't really fit here though because I doubt any female babies are getting circumcised. That's exactly the point.
/r/AntiFeminists30/04/20 09:39 PM
13

I don’t see an issue with it. Do you mean you don't see an issue with it, for you personally? Because if so that's totally your choice and your right to feel that way. Or do you mean you don't see an issue with it, as in, the practice in general? Because if so, that's absolutely reprehensible.
/r/MensRights30/04/20 04:08 AM
5

Make it clear that you are approaching this with sympathy, not an agenda, and that you only want what's best for them and the child. Most people have never thought about it, and they dont know anything about it, all they know is that everyone else does it, so when the doctor asks them they assume it must be a good thing, and agree. Tell them you've seen some research that show its actually not as benign as everyone assumes it is. There's plenty of educational videos I can link if you want. One o…
/r/MensRights18/04/20 09:22 PM
6

Once again, you're conflating routine infant circumcision with circumcision out of medical necessity. The first post did not insinuate that there was no reason to circumcise. But that routine infant circumcision is child abuse. Which it clearly is. Like I said in my other post, to draw an analogy, sometimes women need to get mastectomies because of breast cancer. But if we performed routine mastectomies on all infant girls, that would be a horrible violation of human rights and clearly child abu…
/r/MensRights17/04/20 09:21 PM
5

And everything you said was wrong. As he said, all the studies that allegedly found a reduction in STI transmission are full of methodological errors and have been universally criticized by the world medical community for their lack of rigour. Even in the case of UTI reduction, which some studies do show a very small percentage reduction in, this comes at the cost of increased chance of other infections and complications, so you are not in fact reducing the number of infections in any way. 1 cas…
/r/MensRights17/04/20 06:29 PM
3

I assume you're talking about u/DarthEquus' post. Please tell me, where exactly in his post you think you're seeing this "confirmation."
/r/MensRights17/04/20 06:06 PM
8

Some women need mastectomies to treat breast cancer as well, but we would rightly consider it child abuse to preemptively do that to every girl at birth. There's also higher risk of STD's and infections. Have you even done your research? Completely wrong, sounds like its you who hasn't done your research.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 02:26 PM
1

This isn't even a checklist, because the way these are written, half of them are not even a question because it's trying to force you to have to say yes, and the answer would be yes regardless of who you are and your perceived level of "privilege", and the other half are just preferences/opinions.
/r/MensRights15/04/20 08:01 PM
7

Ritual Jewish circumcisions aren't performed by doctors.
/r/MensRights10/04/20 10:54 PM
12

It speaks to the fact that the Fgm issue is complicated, and it's not as simple as "women suffering under male oppression of their sexuality." After all, every culture that circumcises its girls also circumcises its boys, there isn't anyone who exclusively cuts girls. It in fact has a lot more in common with our cultural understanding of male genital cutting in the West than we perhaps would like to admit. These women often fully support the procedure being done to themselves, and unwilling girl…
/r/MensRights10/04/20 01:32 PM
7

If the government can't convince enough people to go fight and die for a cause, it's not a cause that they should be fighting in the first place. It is the height of sexism and the epitome of the view of men as disposable objects to force them to be complicit in the violence of the state, and subject them to mutilation, traumatization, and death.
/r/MensRights09/04/20 09:53 PM
3

but think of how many cases of HIV that will go unprevented if we dont circumcise all the babies! /S
/r/MensRights09/04/20 08:37 PM
31

We want equality! gets equality Help! I'm being oppressed!
/r/MensRights09/04/20 05:57 PM
3

I disagree. We always hear that "feminism isn't about female supremacy, it's about equal rights." If they really want to put their money where their mouth is, they would support efforts to end male genital mutilation, just as they do for fgm.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 09:01 PM
3

I think the best way to approach it, with someone who is ignorant of the topic but open minded, is with compassion. They are often merely ignorant, because our society has censored any information about it. Most people want to do the right thing for their child, so appeal to this. Have them watch a video of the practice like this (warning, not safe for life, but necessary for anyone to watch who may support this practice or want to inflict this on another human being) https://www.youtube.com/wat…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 07:57 PM
4

Yes, that's my point, and the irony is that feminists who will scream bloody murder about female circumcision being used to control women's sexuality, do not realize that it's the EXACT SAME THING for male circumcision. It was explicitly designed to damage and control male sexuality, from ancient Judea to modern America. You can see this clearly when you learn that every country on Earth that practices FGM, also practices MGM (male circumcision). They all cut the genitals of all their kids. We i…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 07:19 PM
4

To draw an even closer parallel, we do not refer to women as "uncircumcised."
/r/MensRights08/04/20 07:07 PM
7

There's a lot that we actually do know about, but they conveniently skip over those. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1758142/pdf/v074p00364.pdf rigorously controlled studies have consistently shown that circumcised males are at greater risk for all major STDs than males whose penises are intact... The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of urine... It protects and lubricates the glans…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 06:53 PM
7

Yes, unless I'm mistaken, it wasn't illegal before that because it generally wasn't a thing that happened at all. Even during the anti sex craze Kellog period that started the "circumcise boys so they won't jerk off" era which persists to this day, women were never routinely circumcised, even though Kellog himself recommended it. I believe it was due to the influx of immigrants from female genital cutting cultures such as Africa and the Middle East in the last few decades which prompted the bill…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 05:44 PM
9

In all serousness, if male circumcision has all these "benefits" and no drawbacks, then it only makes sense that female circumcision (meaning in this case, removal of the clitoral hood) would have the same benefits and lack of drawbacks. After all, they are very similar structures. Of course that's all BS, and know this because we can tell, intuitively, without needing to see a dozen double blind peer reviewed clinical studies, that yes, amputating healthy and functional parts of women's genital…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 04:30 PM
9

I assumed from the way you spoke that you had chosen to do it. So you didn't. So what's the point of this line If you wanna do it, then do it, if you don’t then don’t. Idk why you’re all making such a fuss over it. ? Sounds like it doesn't actually matter to you whether anyone gets a choice about it.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 04:12 PM
14

There's nothing wrong with choosing to get a circumcision for yourself as an adult. But you're absolutely wrong about how it works as a baby. A child cannot get the same level of pain medication that you got, because anesthetics can kill a baby. And regardless, any surgical procedure, stress and pain, even something as benign as a heel stick, on a baby is potentially traumatizing because the baby does not have any understanding or way to contextualize what is happening. https://pediatrics.aappub…
/r/MensRights08/04/20 03:53 PM
14

Having an intact penis makes sex better for women as well. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163
/r/MensRights08/04/20 03:42 PM
14

You know, people are always saying that female genital mutilation destroys women's ability to enjoy sex, but how do we really know that? How many clinical, peer reviewed, double blind studies have we done to determine exactly what happens? I think this is an issue worthy of further study. And since we're unlikely to get many adult female volunteers, we should obviously circumcise these girls when they're babies, so they don't remember it. /S
/r/MensRights08/04/20 03:40 PM
2

Often the greatest injustices in society persist by being made invisible, and going unquestioned.
/r/MensRights30/03/20 05:27 PM
4

This is literally just "wahhh adulting is so hard" fucking hell
/r/MensRights30/03/20 05:02 PM
2

False. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
/r/MensRights25/03/20 12:57 PM
10

I say that this is a blatant sexist double standard. When are we going to end the misogyny and allow women the life saving, hygiene, and aesthetic benefits of circumcision?
/r/MensRights25/03/20 12:53 PM
3

"I don't need to shame you." previously... "Fuck I just read your posting history lol. The last six weeks. Six fucking weeks. Every single day. You have wrote something about circumcision and nothing else. Legit. Six weeks man and that's the only thing you feel you can bring to the table lol. I might be an asshole but at least I have other interests. You're literally obsessed with circumcision lol. My God no wonder you're so worked up you're like world's biggest Reddit advocate for non circumcis…
/r/MensRights18/03/20 10:17 PM
3

"My decision is honestly based off aesthetics and I know that's wrong. But I'm not and have not been arguing if it's right or wrong, ever. I know morally it's wrong. I'm not an mindless asshole. But at the end of the day as a parent it's my choice and the idea of lack of consent is just a non issue. Babies go through so many non consensual things, it's a moot point. Am I morally wrong for wanting this for my boy, absolutely. Doesn't mean I won't still do it." The fact that anyone can say these w…
/r/MensRights18/03/20 05:36 PM
4

You asked why that's the only thing i post about. There's your answer. As to how often i post, what bearing does that have on our conversation here? If i posted every second of every day, does that change the validity of any of this information? So again i ask, do you have anything to say, besides trying to shame me into silence?
/r/MensRights18/03/20 05:25 PM
3

This is my alt because i know people like you are gonna look through my post history. So now that's out of the way, do you have any actual thoughts? Besides your desire to do things to your own child that you know are morally wrong? Do you have a single point to make? Besides "lol you care about something lmao!"
/r/MensRights18/03/20 04:31 PM
4

"I'm not a mindless asshole." Your right about that, you're not a mindless asshole. You're far worse than that. You're a fully informed asshole. To know the things you claim to know and still proceed, you are the lowest possible form of life. I mean that sincerely.
/r/MensRights18/03/20 02:15 PM
6

So you think the labia doesn't exist at birth, but if it did it would be okay to cut it off? I didn't say you have no reason or right to comment. I said that what you commented was meaningless. That's why i gave you the example of the female version. To show you that if someone comes in and says "I'm a female victim of fgm and i'm ok with it!" That doesn't make it an OK thing to do. You have your opinion. That matters, to you. But this is a public forum. Your opinion does not automatically have …
/r/MensRights18/03/20 01:32 PM
10

"unlike foreskin, it's a growing process" you think a mans foreskin never grows? that he keeps the same baby sized foreskin his entire life? You agree that the reverse is fucked up because of societies view on it? Do you base all of your views only on what is socially acceptable? What is even your point here? You're fine with your circumcision. Great. No one cares. We're not talking about you. By your logic you could justify any horrible victimization by finding one victim who was okay with it. …
/r/MensRights18/03/20 01:06 PM
11

Imagine that we had a practice of circumcising all the girls in this country. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we would find some grown women who, like yourself, would say "As someone who is circumcised I honestly don't really see the problem here. I much rather be snipped than not." Does that change how you think about it at all?
/r/MensRights18/03/20 12:07 PM
6

Why does him being a little bit older make a difference to you?
/r/MensRights18/03/20 12:03 PM
4

Your reaction indicates you are a sane and compassionate person, but i assure you, it is 100% real.
/r/MensRights16/03/20 05:06 PM
16

The fact that she can wield such complete and unchecked brutal power over innocent boys and mutilate them without repercussion. She probably gets off on it.
/r/MensRights16/03/20 05:04 PM
5

Next time someone says "he slept right through it" remember this. If he really "sleeps right through it" they wouldn't need to lash him down like a wild animal.
/r/MensRights16/03/20 05:01 PM
4

I know there's some traction for it, ie Brit Shalom, and i'm hopeful for that, but i won't hold my breath.
/r/MensRights14/03/20 03:22 AM
7

I dont think OP meant to ban it in the context of an adult making a decision for themselves. That's fine. I can guarantee you that people of certain religious tribes are not going to be satisfied with that though. You are never going to be able to appease them, if you take away their ability to mutilate infants genitals. And of course that doesn't matter, because that shouldn't be our standard. Would we allow female circumcision because "certain religions require it?"
/r/MensRights13/03/20 06:51 PM
3

Lets imagine that all the "benefits" (as claimed by pro genital mutilation advocates) of circumcision apply equally to girls. And lets say that the analogous form of female genital cutting would be removal of the clitoral hood. After all, if these "benefits" do exist for boys, it only makes logical sense that they would be operable for girls as well. The clitoral hood is a largely analogous structure to the prepuce of the penis, they even originate from the same tissue while in the womb. But we …
/r/MensRights11/03/20 01:26 PM
3

If its so great, it shouldn't be a difficult decision at all. There should be clear, overwhelming, and irrefutable evidence of the massive benefits of the procedure and minor or non existent drawbacks. But this is not so. Parents, please, if your agonizing over a decision about whether to surgically alter your child without their consent, for life, let your default position be "do no harm." Doctors have abandoned their oath, the government has abandoned its responsibility, and your religions hav…
/r/MensRights11/03/20 01:19 PM
14

You linked an article about a study that claimed it decreases sensation. Even if that study is complete bullshit, as the criticism in that article claim, that does not in any way prove that it does not effect sensation. All it does it discredit that single study. You have to yet to provide a source that shows it doesn't effect sensation. Here, this is a study that actually tests fine touch pressure thresholds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17378847/ "CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumc…
/r/MensRights09/03/20 04:42 PM
18

You don't have to believe. It is, by definition, mutilation.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 04:34 PM
11

That's a social argument, not a legal or medical argument. If the procedure was actually beneficial, no doctor would ever advise against it simply because the patient is aware of it. Can we imagine any other case this would be so? "Well ma'am, i'd love to take that ruptured appendix out, but can't, sorry, he might remember it." So we can easily see that the argument has no weight. When people say "he won't remember it," what they really mean is not "he won't remember the pain," what they mean is…
/r/MensRights09/03/20 04:27 PM
4

Another example of the callous disregard for males of our society. Can you imagine "male preference for clean and neat vaginas" being a valid reason to genitally mutilate all girls at birth? Even suggesting that grown women do such a thing of their own free will, would make you a laughing stock and social pariah.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 03:19 PM
25

How is it any more child abuse than when it's done to an infant?
/r/MensRights09/03/20 03:11 PM
18

A yes, the old "if you don't want babies penises to be mutilated you must be a pedo who loves baby dicks." What i think is odd is people who come onto a men's rights sub and then talk about how they dont think men deserve rights.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 03:10 PM
5

So, despite the fact that all of the pre 20th century sources explicitly state that circumcision is done to prevent men from enjoying sex, and coincidentally the claims about circumcision destroying male sexuality disappeared around the time the sexual revolution made it uncool to talk about denying people sexual pleasure, and the fact that in every country in the world where women are circumcised (to prevent them from enjoying sex) men are also circumcised, you believe that there is no adverse …
/r/MensRights09/03/20 03:06 PM
5

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outs…
/r/MensRights09/03/20 02:58 PM
1

Everywhere that they genitally mutilate girls they also genitally mutilate boys. How then is it solely fgm that is oppression? Most women who are victims of fgm report satisfaction with their sex life. Just as most men who are victims of mgm say. They say it doesn't prevent them from enjoying sex. Are they wrong? If not, what is the difference? Why is sensitivity about religion and race a valid reason to allow mgm, but not fgm? After all, for many Muslims and Africans it is part of their religio…
/r/MensRights09/03/20 01:55 PM
3

Fgm does not mean a woman will never enjoy sex.
/r/MensRights08/03/20 09:56 PM
2

Do you need help?
/r/MensRights08/03/20 01:10 PM
4

Lets do a thought experiment. Imagine that some form of fgm was proven to have all the benefits that are claimed for mgm. Reduced chance of STDs, UTIs, cancer, etc. Could you imagine that our society would even entertain the notion that this should be a routine thing for infant girls? Or even that it should be tolerated at all? Its hard to believe. Yet an infant boy? Fuck it, chop him up.
/r/MensRights07/03/20 09:31 PM
6

Amazing, i'm convinced!
/r/MensRights07/03/20 09:22 PM
5

"they don't want to admit their parent's fucked up their dick" this is exactly it.
/r/MensRights04/03/20 06:08 PM
5

So go do it to yourself then, nobody is stopping you. What we object to is forcing it on people who didn't want it.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 08:41 PM
3

There are thousands of men who are literally stretching out their remaining foreskin until it regrows into a new pseudoforeskin. If they can do that, you totally have the ability to stretch out your foreskin until it can retract easily and cure your phimosis. Don't let the doctor tell you that you need a circumcision. If you want to, thats your choice, but know that you have options that don't involved amputation. http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
/r/MensRights03/03/20 08:33 PM
3

You're making a lot of assumptions. Do "flaps" really annoy you that much that you need to get rid of them? What other body flaps and crevices are you going to willingly amputate so you don't have to worry about cleaning them? Why would you be less sensitive with more penis and sensory nerves? And why would you think it's "harder and more painful" when you're older? An adult can get fully anesthetized when he's cut, a baby cannot. Anesthesia wasn't even used on babies at all during circumcision …
/r/MensRights03/03/20 08:30 PM
6

And that's one of the justifications they use to mutilate little girls in other parts of the globe. Of course, we can recognize this logic as twisted and barbaric. But strange that we think it only applies to one gender...
/r/MensRights03/03/20 08:21 PM
3

No, that's impossible. When you amputate any body part you will of course lose whatever nerves were there. The few studies that have been done have shown that all of the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. On a circumcised man, the most sensitive part of his penis usually is the scar line where the tiny bit of tissue from his original foreskin remains. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17378847/ "CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine tou…
/r/MensRights03/03/20 07:53 PM
5

I would trust your gut man. With your experience, does that seem like the right thing to do for your son? Let me just say that many doctors have little to no knowledge of intact penises or how to care for them. The foreskin is often completely absent from medical textbooks. As if, by default male biology is circumcised. This page has more info on intact care. https://www.yourwholebaby.org/intact-care-menu
/r/MensRights03/03/20 05:14 PM
2

No, it's a myth. But it shows that even among people who all had intact genitals, they thought that women experienced more sexual pleasure than men.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 04:34 PM
2

Buddy no social movement in history has ever succeeded because it was supported solely by the people who were directly effected or victimized by that issue. You need support from the people who "don't truly understand or go through" these things to make any change.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 03:15 PM
5

Nobody is saying a man can't choose it for himself if he wants to, when he is of age to make decisions for himself. But nobody gave me or 99% of the other men cut as babies any choice in the matter. And yes, many of those men grow up and don't see it as a problem, and good for them. But for those of us who do take issue with it, there is no recourse. Our only option is a to try and stretch the remaining skin, hours a day for several years, to try and regain a fraction of the lost sensation and f…
/r/MensRights03/03/20 03:11 PM
11

False. Read the earliest sources, they say nothing about hygeine. They are explicitly clear that it solely a religious sacrifice meant to curb male sexuality. Plus, modern circumcision as we know it (Bris Milah) wasn't invented until the 2nd century AD. Before that circumcision was a much less drastic procedure that only removed the very tip of the foreskin and left 90% of the foreskin intact. So if there was any "hygeine benefits" to the modern style it wouldn't have been applicable to ancient …
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:48 PM
2

"What's there to argue about." You'd think it would be that easy, but unfortunately, this topic inspires a lot of really crazy justifications and rationalizations for cutting up baby penis. You can see it in this very thread.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:39 PM
15

Basically the head of the penis and the foreskin are fused together like the fingernail to the nail bed. This will, in almost all men, dissolve naturally by adolescence. There is no need to clean inside it because theres nothing to clean. Trying to clean inside by forcing it back prematurely can cause scarring, infections, and phimosis and many men who "require" a circumcision later in life because of improper care when they were younger.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:28 PM
3

Because very few men would ever choose to do it to themselves. So they must prey on the weak and vulnerable.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:23 PM
11

Not in the same way a vagina does, but yes. When the glans stays covered the glans and inner skin of the foreskin stays moist and smooth. Because they are not really exterior skin, they're actually a mucous membrane, more like the inside of a vagina. When they're exposed they dry out and become covered in a layer of keratin, which is basically a callus like those that develop on your hands and feet. Also an intact penis, when it enters a vagina, basically creates a seal. The skin tube glides bac…
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:21 PM
11

2-3 is way too young. Puberty or even later is when you can start trying to retract. But don't force it. Forcing it can cause scarring and phimosis.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:09 PM
12

I agree, but, girls had to do the same thing too ya know. They weren't having screaming orgasms in their bedroom down the hall from mom and dad.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:01 PM
19

I agree. Cut, and I can orgasm completely stone faced, no heavy breathing, no moaning, no body movement, nothing, just an ejaculation. If you saw me from the waist up you wouldn't even know i was doing anything other just sitting/laying there chilling out. But also consider that there was an ancient Greek myth (Greeks of course being all intact), exact name of it escapes me right now, where Zeus and Hera made a wager as to who enjoyed sex more, men or women. They got a guy who had been both a ma…
/r/MensRights02/03/20 06:33 PM
3

The difference is those women had the privilege of keeping all their original parts and finding that out for themselves. I get that you're trying to be positive, but what is the guy supposed to take from this? Something like, "Maybe you would have been a guy who really liked having his frenulum teased, but the glans not so much. Oh well, too bad!"
/r/MensRights01/03/20 08:11 AM
4

This is a great argument against the "iT dOeSnT eFfEcT sEnSaTiOn" crowd. Why is it that the tiny part of foreskin that remains is overwhelmingly the most sensitive part?
/r/MensRights01/03/20 08:09 AM
3

"Is working with what sensations remain reducing pleasure in the bedroom for women?" Not to be a debbie downer, but yes. Circumcision is associated with a range of sexual difficulties, including reduced female pleasure, increased pain, and reduced frequency of female orgasm. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163
/r/MensRights01/03/20 08:07 AM
3

No offense but you don't know what your talking about. Modern combat is so much more than "shooting a gun." If that was the case there's plenty of fat old guys who can absolutely spank most soldiers in marksmanship, and they would be our best soldiers. But its not. The fitness you need to be a combat effective modern soldier would break most men in our modern society, let alone women. Soldiers these days carry more weight than soldiers at any previous time in history, just to give one example.
/r/MensRights28/02/20 02:32 PM
3

As a veteran, i think it is not wrong per se to have different baseline standards for service. We already have different standards for men of different ages for example. Having lower standards for women is just accepting that women as a group are less physically fit than men. This is fine when you don't have women in combat roles. The problem is that this logic breaks down when you open those combat roles up to women. And we don't do a good enough job at setting and enforcing standards for parti…
/r/MensRights28/02/20 02:28 PM
5

Things can get messy when we talk about social attitudes, so i like to cut right to legal issues, because it's much more clear cut and easy to make a point. Whenever someone says anything about male vs female rights (in developed, western countries, third world is a whole other issue) i ask them to name 1 right men have that women don't. They never can. Then ask them what they think about the fact that is completely illegal to surgically alter the genitalia of a girl, but completely legal to do …
/r/MensRights28/02/20 02:14 PM
1

Men are expendable. What's the problem with dead babies and mangled dicks? As long as American women never have to see an anteater everything's gravy.
/r/MensRights26/02/20 03:43 PM
6

What stops people especially Muslims from flying with their newborns to... let's say Saudi Arabia?
/r/MensRights26/02/20 02:57 PM
3

Vasalgel seems to be plugging away but no way to know when it will be available. They were saying 3-5 years, 2 years ago.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 03:59 PM
5

Kinda strange to imply that women do all these things selflessly and as submission to male will, when frankly its almost entirely about female freedom from sexual consequences.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 03:56 PM
19

We've already agreed it's ok to rip off half his dick skin without anesthetic, what's wrong with a little suck to top it all off?
/r/MensRights24/02/20 01:36 AM
18

funny how the people in these communities never hear these dog whistles, but the outside critics can basically "dog whistle" is code for "i get to take anything you say and make it mean whatever I want it to mean"
/r/MensRights21/02/20 06:51 PM
2

Good comment from there: (paraphrasing) This is more like a "forbidden opinion" than an "unpopular opinion." This is one of those things that everyone agrees with, but no one is allowed to say it.
/r/MensRights21/02/20 02:36 PM
3

Beats me, but weve seen mutiple stories recently where feminists, lawyers, police, etc, said that doing something like a consent form or recording consent was somehow evidence of guilt
/r/MensRights21/02/20 02:04 PM
5

this. same as "you must get consent, but if make any record of the consent, thats proof youre a rapist" honk honk
/r/MensRights21/02/20 01:16 PM
9

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that amputating healthy, normal, erogenous tissue leads to sexual dysfunction! But seriously, I always find it funny (funny weird, not funny haha) that people will accept implicitly the idea that removing any amount of tissue, even a single drop of blood, from the female genitals will adversely effect sensation and function, but will demand multiple double blind peer reviewed studies before they even consider the idea that removing 50% of the penile sheath skin, mucosa, an…
/r/MensRights20/02/20 03:12 PM
23

The average amount of sex men and women are having is the same, but the deviation for men is much higher. Some guys arent getting laid at all, and some are getting laid with lots of different women all the time.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 02:43 PM
2

Shame is a powerful weapon in enforcing group behavior norms. Thats why every argument of theirs boils down to "dirtiness" or "ugliness."
/r/MensRights19/02/20 01:53 PM
5

Its all so tiresome. Its like playing chess with a pidgeon. You can win so easily but it doesnt matter because theyll take a shit on the board and strut around like they won. They really are a brainwashed cult.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 01:48 PM
2

No surprise. Women in America like to mutilate dicks then turn around and claim theyre the oppressed ones.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 01:46 PM
1

lmao now i know why my foreskin caused so much trouble, fucker was smoking 3 packs a day!
/r/MensRights19/02/20 01:44 PM
3

And we look down upon Muslim countries and honor killings of rape victims.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 01:36 PM
33

Implying women have no agency except to be acted upon by men? Very progressive, very empowering.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 07:50 PM
17

"men overwhelming majority of victims of genital mutilation: women most affected"
/r/MensRights14/02/20 02:49 PM
5

unfortunately, "dont cut kids genitals" is a very contentious issue for some people, for some reason
/r/MensRights13/02/20 02:29 PM
6

i think youre in violent agreement with OP the point is not that mgm is worse the point is that saying "fgm is worse" is bullshit and an excuse used to minimize mgm
/r/MensRights13/02/20 02:23 PM
4

he pops up in every mgm thread, and every post he makes is more non sensical than the last
/r/MensRights13/02/20 02:21 PM
2

ironically, this is the same rationale used by the AAP when they promoted female circumcision. they contended that because male circumcision is legal, female circumcision should be legal as well, because it is less destructive https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722840 keep this in mind whenever someone cites the AAP to support male circumcision
/r/MensRights13/02/20 02:18 PM
11

Again, i havent seen that. And i follow these a lot. What i have seen is men saying "i dont feel damaged by it, AND THUS it is not a big deal," and the responses to that. Im sure you can see why the last bit there makes all the difference.
/r/MensRights12/02/20 08:02 PM
15

yes i agree, the worst thing you could do is run up to a cut man and shout in his face "YOUR PENIS IS INFERIOR" no man wants to feel like hes been emasculated. paradoxically, thats part of why this rotten tradition has survived for so long. because its too mentally painful for most men to accept what was done to them, they feel the need to justify it and then pass it along to their children. i guess the best way is to focus on the children, and emphasize how there is no benefit to the child and …
/r/MensRights12/02/20 07:38 PM
31

Where is this shaming of cut men by intactivists? Simply talking about the lost functions of the penis and damage to the penis is not shaming. We cant be squeemish about this, we have to be willing to face the facts. If youre unwilling to state the facts, because those facts are uncomfortable, the movement will get buried, because people will be able to say "well ive never heard any drawbacks to circumcision." and we'll have to say "yeah thats true, we didnt tell you because we were worried it w…
/r/MensRights12/02/20 07:20 PM
5

So thats fair that you are skeptical, thats a good trait to have. But i ask you to consider something. You probably believe that fgm damages a woman sexual functions, right? If so, how many studies did you need to read before arriving at that conclusion? Did you need to read any studies at all? Or is it just blatantly obvious that removing healthy erogenous tissue from a woman will alter and damage her sexuality? If these things are obvious to us, why do we need the latest in double blind random…
/r/MensRights07/02/20 01:49 PM
2

No i dont get to decide, your parents did, when they mutilated you.
/r/MensRights07/02/20 01:43 PM
5

So thats a yes.
/r/MensRights07/02/20 01:42 PM
5

so, pray tell, if its so not a big deal, exactly how is the man supposed to "restore" the 20,000 nerve endings, ridged band, and frenulum?
/r/MensRights07/02/20 01:39 PM
3

that sucks man. have you tried restoration? it might be that you skin is just tight, and if you stretch it out youll get a more natural hang
/r/MensRights07/02/20 01:37 PM
4

im sorry if i seemed accusatory and harsh earlier. i didnt mean that, and im not trying to make you feel bad. theres just unfortunately so much misinformation out there that even people who try to do the right thing get caught up in it and end up doing harm. i hope you stay well.
/r/MensRights07/02/20 12:42 AM
10

where did you get the idea that fgm always removes the entire clitoris, or even that such a thing is possible? the vast majority of female circumcisions do not remove the clitoris. it is not even possible to remove the entire clitoris without extreme surgery, as it extends into the body and wraps around the vaginal canal. and even if it did, most women who are victims of fgm say that they are happy with their sexuality, just as most men do. are those women wrong? if so, why arent the men wrong? …
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:11 PM
6

Im not saying you should have known better. But lack of knowledge causes a lot of these problems, and lots of people, doctors included, simply dont know how to care for an intact penis. Which is basically, leave it alone. Dont try to retract until it happens naturally, and only clean what is seen. They aggresively pull it back prematurely, which causes infections and phimosis (phimosis which, again, should never be a problem for a pre pubescent male because he shouldnt be retracted) then prescri…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 04:21 PM
12

You would prefer to live in blissful ignorance, rather than face painful truth?
/r/MensRights06/02/20 03:45 PM
4

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering take…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 03:09 PM
2

Its astronomically expensive to get it cleared by the FDA, and theres very little chance to make lots of money, so big pharma wont pick it up, ensuring that its all but guaranteed to never come to america.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 03:01 PM
-10

your circumcision was likely entirely prevantable. your not supposed to be able to pull it back when youre 8. thats why it was painful. the fact that you did so is what caused the infections.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 02:57 PM
11

It definitely has effected you. Whether you think the effects are important is another question. It made your penis smaller, more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction, and less pleasurable for both you and your partner. So if youre ok with all that, good for you. That doesnt mean anyone else should be.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 01:32 PM
3

the amount of energy i would have to expend to make any change to the cultures of any african nation is astronomical compared to the effect i could have here in my home nation. and there are already massive international organizations working to end fgm in africa. literally everyone in the developed world agress fgm is bad. anything i would do would be pissing in the wind. but mgm is to this day pushed by massive international organizations and recognition of the true horror of the procedure is …
/r/MensRights04/02/20 11:38 PM
11

good, gather the american female victims of fgm, ill personally drive them to any protest they want to do. they should all fit in my minivan.
/r/MensRights04/02/20 02:20 PM
1

it is possible to simultaneously believe that these roles should not be mandatory, but also that they are probably ideal for most relationships
/r/MensRights04/02/20 01:06 PM
10

they bitch and moan about "muh equal rights" but cant name a single right men have that women dont, meanwhile it is literally true that men can legally be victimized by genital mutilation and women cannot.
/r/MensRights04/02/20 01:03 PM
5

Absolute mad lads. Shame the article doesnt say anything about them except the fact that some retarded soccer moms who hate formula 1 got pissed at them.
/r/MensRights04/02/20 01:00 PM
1

Never admit wrong doing, never apologize.
/r/MensRights03/02/20 03:11 PM
5

its not like he made it a central part of his presentation or anything...
/r/MensRights03/02/20 03:07 PM
6

that didnt stop them from calling Eric Clopper anti semitic
/r/MensRights03/02/20 01:12 PM
106

id say probably the fear of decades in prison is the main factor
/r/MensRights03/02/20 04:24 AM
5

if this had been posted in isolation, i would agree with you. but its clearly a response meant to highlight the ridiculousness of the original post
/r/MensRights31/01/20 03:02 PM
3

do you have anything to offer the conversation besides ridicule?
/r/MensRights31/01/20 12:36 PM
5

its satire
/r/MensRights31/01/20 12:35 PM
13

Just wait till some of those guys actually see what an uncircumcised vagina looks like. They will run out of the room screaming. Edit: Welp, found the gal with roast beef flaps.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 02:51 AM
3

the problem is its not just friction, its also being exposed to the air that causes damage. the skin under the fore skin is not actually skin, its a mucous membrane. Like the mucous membrane inside your mouth. What happens if you sleep with you mouth open? Dry mouth. Same thing. It needs a covered and moist environment.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 12:51 PM
3

well theres the quick way and the long way, neither easy. the quick way, you get a cone kind of like the cap on a babys bottle, put it over your dick head, and you wear it 24/7 for the rest of your life. the long way, you spend years tugging on your foreskin remnant until the skin grows and lengthens enough to slide forward and cover yourself like you would have been if you had never been cut.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 03:30 AM
4

You know how your hands get rougher and calloused when you lift weights or do manual labor? Same thing happens to your dick when it rubs around in your underwear and is exposed to the air. Cover up the head and the remaining inner skin and it gradually sheds the tough outer layer.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 12:48 AM
4

true, but theres nothing you can do about that (unless/until foregen gets going). you gotta do the best with what you got. the nerves that are still there are covered with a layer of rough and calloused skin, which desenitizes the remaining nerves. getting that covered up will let that skin shed and the remaining nerves regain their sensitivity. anecdotally some guys (who were cut as adults and restored) say as much as 80% of feeling comes back
/r/MensRights27/01/20 04:59 PM
5

This. Its a long and often frustrating road but you will have many benefits including improved sensation and function (regain natural "gliding" action).
/r/MensRights27/01/20 02:44 PM
9

Okay, im about as against routine infant circumcision as you can be, but its not the equivalent of cutting someone hands off. Yes it damages your sexuality, and your psyche, but you can live a 90% normal life with no foreskin. No hands youre fucked for life. We can argue against mgm without making false equivalencies.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 02:41 PM
3

Shut up, lawyer NOW.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 02:34 PM
1

Yeah, funny how my aesthetic preferences were never considered.
/r/MensRights24/01/20 11:10 PM
5

hormonal Miss me with that shit. Hormonal birth control for either gender is a phenomenally bad idea. Wake me up when Vasalgel gets off the ground. Edit: the last male hormonal birth control study was terminated early because there were so many negative side effects https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/index.html
/r/MensRights24/01/20 06:33 PM
17

Labor is a product. Being employed is selling the product (your labor) to a consumer (your employer) who finds value in that labor. Or you can be self employed and cut out the middleman. Regardless, you get compensated by the consumer of your labor/product for the value it brings to them. When you are a parent, the one who consumes your labor is your child. Are you going to make the child pay for the privilege of being born? No, you are going to make society pay for the choices you made.
/r/MensRights24/01/20 06:26 PM
4

Not just resentment, theres plenty of people who have had their penis permanently mangled to the point of impotence, or literally died. And for what? A 1% lower chance of HIV? Theres a 0% chance of HIV if your dick is mangled and useless or youre dead.
/r/MensRights24/01/20 02:57 PM
6

"Right, but I said cosmetic, not aesthetic. I apologize that English isn't your first language. Cosmetic in colloquial speech can be used to denote something non-essential." Then the word you are looking for "elective procedure," not "cosmetic procedure." You should learn the meaning of the words you choose to use. This may be a shock to you, but circumcision is often justified (yes, in America) on the grounds that it makes the penis "look better" or that the boy must "look like his father." You…
/r/MensRights23/01/20 09:07 PM
5

"cosmetic operation" Those are your words. From The Free Dictionary Cosmetic: Serving to beautify the body, especially the face and hair. Aesthetic: relating to a sense of the beautiful So is it a procedure meant to beautify the penis, or is it not?
/r/MensRights23/01/20 07:16 PM
3

"low risk" There's a 100% chance of removal at least 30%, up to 50%, of the total skin and mucosa of the penile sheath, 100% chance of removal of the ridged band, and a significant chance of removal of the entire frenulum. Sounds like a pretty big risk to me. But if youre so concerned abut aesthetics, why is alright for an aesthetic choice about my body to be dictated by someone who isnt me? It doesnt seem the least bit strange to you for my parents to mold my genitals into a form that is arousi…
/r/MensRights23/01/20 06:54 PM
21

What is the medical diagnosis that requires circumcision? In 99% of cases, there isnt one (besides being born male). Routine removal of wisdom teeth is also wrong, same for appendix, tonsils, etc. If for no other reason than because there is a real chance of death. Any surgery is wrong unless medically necessary OR with the full informed consent of the patient. Routine infant circumcision is neither.
/r/MensRights23/01/20 06:49 PM
13

Damn, how powerful is my dick. It can be oppressive simply by its absence lmao.
/r/MensRights23/01/20 06:43 PM
1

For a lot of them they dont give much thought to it. Most people think it really is a tiny flap of skin, like 1 square inch. Theyre flabbergasted when you tell them its on average 15 square inches, half the total penis skin. They also assume its a universal thing. Like its just someone everyone across the world does, and has done forever. They dont realize its a very fringe thing and has only become popular in america in the last 100 years, and has never been a thing in the rest of the western w…
/r/MensRights23/01/20 02:31 PM
2

In a just and reasonable world, yes. But were not in a just or reasonable world.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 08:33 PM
5

Indeed. See Pauls declaration that to those who let themselves be curcumcised that "Christ will be of no use to you." And that they must then follow "the whole (Hebrew) law." The point is that Christ was the final blood sacrifice. To continue that tradition is to reject Christ.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 05:45 PM
15

It does not. Read my comment further down, no medical association except for the AAP recommends it. It began as a religious blood sacrifice for Jews, 100 years ago it was adopted by neo Puritans as a way to decrease male sex drive, and now its morphed into this vague "disease prevention" thing. Every generation finds a new excuse for it, usually whatever ailment is the scariest to them at the time. Whether thats being cut off from God, masturbation, cancer, HIV, etc. Like the foreskin is somehow…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 04:35 PM
7

Youre not American, right? You would be shocked at how many American Christians believe its a Christian requirement, when their own book says the exact opposite. Then again, thats par for the course for them.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 04:29 PM
10

Women frankly dont know any better. Only American women "prefer" it, because it is what is normal to them. Across the rest of the developed world it is not normal, its seen as a mutilation. American women may change their tune if they learn that they are missing half of their potential vaginal orgasms by having sex with mutilated guys. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163 Or does everyone think its just a coincidence that we not only lead the world in circumcision, but in person…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 04:04 PM
5

I dont mean to put a burden on you, but thats frankly not enough. They can always find some quack willing to do it. Doctors need to be on the front lines combating this, educating people about the true horror of the procedure.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 04:00 PM
10

Is womens aesthetic preference a valid reason or not? You cant have this both ways. If it is, why wouldnt a similar aesthetic preference by males over the female vulva be an equally valid reason? If not, then your point is just baseless shaming from your own perception of aesthetics about other peoples bodies and entirely irrelevant. But since you seem to want to scurry away to "but muh religion/science/doctors" instead of owning up to your own position, lets see what doctors have to say, shall …
/r/MensRights22/01/20 03:45 PM
12

Hey dude, if on the "list of valid reasons to cut off part of your sons penis" you include "women like it better," you cant turn around and claim that wouldnt be a valid reason if applied to women. You claimed women like it better. Theres no religious or medical reasoning involved at all there. If you have to go scurrying back to "but muh science/religion" then your original position is bullshit that cant stand on its own and all your doing is shaming men and trying to carve up their flesh based…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 02:32 PM
26

I, for one, welcome our new robot loli cat girl overlords.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 02:01 PM
9

Same reason Im gonna circumcise my daughters tbh fam. No guy wants to stick his face in some fishy smelling roast beef flaps.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 01:43 PM
5

For men who dont want to be penetrated, their natural g spot is the frenulum, and 90% of American men dont have one because it was chopped off when they were a baby.
/r/MensRights21/01/20 06:06 PM
8

As linked by intactisnormal below, several hundred circumcisions would have to be performed to prevent a single UTI. https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision For comparison sake, girls get UTIs at triple the rate boys do. But they are easily, cheaply, and routinely treated by antibiotics. And to even suggest that circumcising a girl to prevent UTIs (even though you could make the argument using the same logic they use for boys) would be unthinkable.
/r/MensRights21/01/20 06:01 PM
15

Necessary yes, thats why none of us exist, because our ancestors all died of dick rot.
/r/MensRights21/01/20 01:41 PM
1

why are you always angry lmao but seriously thats a good point, theres the saying "men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them." i didnt say everyone must be judged the poor actions of a small minority, i said that there is a non zero chance every person you interact with can ruin your life. you have to make the choice as to what your acceptable level of risk is and what precautions you will take
/r/MensRights15/01/20 03:37 AM
3

Do a little thought experiment. How many research papers would you have to read to be opposed to female circumcision?
/r/MensRights14/01/20 02:40 PM
2

thats the problem though, you cant know who is who. its like i give you a bucket of m&ms, but tell you a couple are filled with arsenic. do you eat a random one? c'mon, youll probably be fine, #notallm&ms
/r/MensRights14/01/20 02:21 PM
1

yeah but imagine that same scenario except every time the guy doesnt ask, theres a 50/50 chance he could go to prison
/r/MensRights14/01/20 02:14 PM
7

Devils advocate: Correlation does not equal causation. Also its possible that the HIV rates would be even higher in America if mgm wasnt as popular. Unlikely, but possible. That being said, I believe the Africa studies are "science" akin to measuring skulls to test for IQ. ie, pure garbage. But even if we take the Africa studies at face value, and ignore the massive methodological flaws, their best result was like 1.5% total risk reduction. But they hyped it up by using the relative risk reducti…
/r/MensRights13/01/20 05:19 PM
2

Thats absolutely false. The original studies that "proved" only a fee soldiers killed were interviews done after battles, from just a couple units in one theatre. So the results are dubious even for the units in question. To expand this to an entire theory of warfare across time, space and regions is ludicrous (and as an aside, to expand it even further into a general theory on human behavior like Grossman does in "On Killing" is the height of absurdity). Do you know how many officers and genera…
/r/MensRights13/01/20 01:54 PM
18

"Youre a rapist!" "Youre a rapist!" pointing spidermans
/r/MensRights12/01/20 03:23 PM
3

why are you incapable of banter without immediately resorting to insults
/r/MensRights10/01/20 06:14 PM
3

why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer
/r/MensRights10/01/20 01:54 PM
1

Women who get pregnant while their unit is in a deployment workup or actually deployed/underway need to be NJP'd.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 01:52 PM
10

Except it doesnt really look the same when erect. The cut penis has a big band of discolored scar tissue, and the glans and inner skin are dry and calloused, while the intact one is moist and supple.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 01:43 PM
9

i propose a law "All infant genital mutilation is banned, with a religious exemption, because the rights of all children must be protected, except for muslims and jews." not srs, but watching them tie themselves in knots trying to figure out if its antisemitic to support the rights of muslim and jewish children, would be hilarious
/r/MensRights10/01/20 01:34 PM
2

not in the US. its state by state, and most states its 16
/r/MensRights09/01/20 04:21 PM
7

Yes we should teach people not to rape. But we already do that. Just as we teach people not to murder, steal, and lie. But people still do those things. We cant just wave our hands around and screech "YOU SHOULDNT DO THAT" and expect angelic behavior from all of humanity. We have to be prepared to deal with evil. And that includes taking measures to defend ourselves from those things. And that also doesnt mean that the victim of any of these crimes is somehow morally deficient, and we should alw…
/r/MensRights07/01/20 06:55 PM
28

If theyre such fans of it, ask them, when do they plan to get circumcised?
/r/MensRights06/01/20 08:23 PM
7

Keep going plz, this is the funniest shit ive read so far this year.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 08:27 PM
7

No thats different because waves hands reasons.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 04:19 PM
19

Because if some (gay) men are victims, that sets a precedent that yes, it is possible for men to be victims, and that they cant abide.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 03:22 PM
13

Imagine being the kind of person who thinks about looking at and tasting baby penises so much they actually have preferences about them.
/r/MensRights26/12/19 03:17 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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