TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

wufoo2 Archive

View 0 posts and 326 comments by wufoo2 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
9

Yes, I'm SO happy to see this. Some nurses in New Mexico banded together years ago and refused to participate in RIC, daring the administration to fire them. Instead, they got the hospital to agree to a compact where those nurses were exempt. That's truly civil disobedience, and it's a tactic that should be tested more often.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 02:06 PM
8

Mayo Clinic is very much a U.S. medical establishment organization. As such, it is populated by male and female doctors who have no foreskin and have been trained to do pretty much one thing with it: cut it off. They discount the purpose and value of the foreskin and spotlight whatever they can find to support its destruction. If you can imagine a group of people who'd had their thumbs amputated at birth and who made money amputating others' thumbs, that gives you an idea of Mayo's mindset. Cont…
/r/MensRights07/08/18 12:50 PM
1

Way better with a foreskin.
/r/askTRP01/08/18 07:32 PM
5

Nephrologist is American, I bet. There's so much misinformation in med schools these days. No retraction by anyone but the boy himself. It usually happens by age 5, but can take well into the teens. There's nothing special you have to do. In fact, the less that others meddle (parents, medical professionals), generally the better.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 11:17 AM
2

This citation might help you find it..
/r/MensRights26/01/17 09:32 PM
1

I doubt a mom would do that. I've heard more than one anecdote about a mother who changed her mind about circumcision immediately after birth because "the baby had been through enough pain."
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:53 PM
2

It's not how I feel that matters. I would feel in favor. But nowhere in the Constitution, nor in any other document limiting the power of government, is there any precedent for this sort of law. So I would be opposed. I would like to see circumcision outlawed, though.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 07:19 PM
3

Circumcision is the worst answer for phimosis. The good news is, it's fixable virtually every time without surgery. Here is more on phimosis, and here is a discussion board for guys dealing with it. Be sure to use the search before asking your question. (The moderator can get testy if you don't!) Above all, be wary of American doctors. Many of them only know one thing to do with a foreskin: cut it off. You don't want to lose those nerve endings and suffer a keratinized glans (NSFW). Your girl wo…
/r/askTRP30/10/16 04:33 AM
2

Women don't like circumcised penises better, but many think they do. Circumcision is defended because it can't be reversed.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 04:34 PM
1

At least one respected survey showed that circumcised men engage in more varied sexual practices than non-circumcised men. But it didn't try to explain that finding.
/r/MGTOW15/10/16 03:14 PM
6

In itself, that's bias. Circumcision is an artifice, not a natural part of the body or its development. Therefore it is on the circumciser to prove his case. Being anti-circumcision is not bias.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 01:33 AM
1

I'd like to see this reposted at /r/uncircumcised_forum, please.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 12:50 PM
1

Where is that?
/r/MensRights06/08/16 12:49 PM
2

I'm out the door and don't have time to read this, but I wonder if she addresses the damage circumcision does to men in the way they can come to view male genital cutting as "normal" and perpetuate it on their sons.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 03:02 PM
2

Here's what men circumcised as adults have to say.
/r/askTRP31/07/16 02:39 PM
2

I'm not sure even Hitchens understood that the circumcision in the Bible/Torah was much less invasive and destructive than the total amputation started in the 2nd century and practiced today (possibly NSFW line drawings). I don't defend genital cutting of any kind. But it's important to know that primitive circumcision was a mere bloodletting, not an attempt to impair or disfigure males. Humans decided the penis wasn't good enough as-is, not God.
/r/TheRedPill14/07/16 02:35 PM
2

It is up and visible now, if that's any consolation.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 01:51 PM
4

Cognitive dissonance is the worst defense mechanism.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 01:23 PM
1

I don't doubt the conclusion. It's the methodology that makes the whole survey less than reliable.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 01:44 PM
1

Good link, thanks. Unfortunately the methodology (self-selection) puts a stain on it. This is the biggest challenge in "proving" what should be obvious: that circumcision diminishes sexual pleasure. There's no reliable way to measure enjoyment. I think the best method would be to survey European and American couples in mass numbers, then compare them. Then further compare the American subset of couples with an intact male to the Europeans.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 12:22 PM
1

Takes longer to have an orgasm Would like to see a source on this, please, along with evidence why "taking longer" is a benefit. Orgasms are weaker (you don't like being overcome with sensation) Again: source? Don't have to have awkward conversations with the doctor, or family Depends on the individuals involved. Our (U.S.) family doctor counseled against circumcision, and every doctor I've encountered since then has had nothing to say about it. No extra body parts to clean or worry about Parts …
/r/MensRights06/07/16 03:01 PM
1

As a father currently in divorce proceedings (wife-initiated), I can only suggest there is much more to the story than you have been told. Courts are "biased" IMO because divorce situations are horribly complex and emotional, and allegations are rarely well documented. Judges look for easy ways to deal with each situation, which isn't always fair. The bitter feelings can last a lifetime.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 01:18 PM
1

I'll be blunt: It remains legal because every effort to ban it runs smack into religious-freedom interference from Jewish political donors and activists. They are afraid that even if they get a religious exemption, it could eventually get revoked. So they fight any move toward banning routine circumcision. It doesn't take more than a phone call to stop it, and congressmen know that, so they don't bother. There's also a conflict among doctors, who take money for circumcisions and many of them wou…
/r/MensRights21/05/16 10:08 PM
6

That wasn't the origin. Here is the history of circumcision, and here is an interesting account of how it transitioned from a mere bloodletting into an invasive, more destructive act. The statements by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides underscore your point about denying sexual pleasure to men and women.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 01:54 AM
8

This is a good idea if you ever get into a debate about circumcision and your opponent pulls the religion card. Just point out that people within a faith can disagree, and here's the website.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 01:11 AM
2

We have an almost identical story. Mom wanted me cut, too, at the height of the U.S. circumcision frenzy. Our small town doctor (the only one for miles) talked her out of it. I didn't learn the story until long after he died, so I sent a letter to his son (also a doctor) to express my gratitude. I'm sorry to hear you ended up losing your foreskin anyway. Far too many doctors think circumcision is the only answer to phimosis, which I'm guessing was your diagnosis.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 03:34 PM
7

Also, here is a collection of actual photos of infant circumcisions gone horribly wrong. It's NSFW and NSFL for its graphic depictions. Use care in linking to this.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 02:23 PM
6

This is a good point. There is no "right" way to cut healthy tissue off a healthy body.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 02:21 PM
1

cirp.org
/r/MensRights25/04/16 02:58 PM
1

That is terrific news.
/r/seduction24/04/16 09:26 PM
1

she is absolutely stunning If you put a woman on a pedestal, she will have no choice but to look down on you. She already has told me i'm really sweet and cute "Sweet" may mean she's already looking down on you. That's a word they use when their 6yo nephew makes them a valentine. I know exactly how you feel, which is why I'm getting right to what I think is the point: You are already attached to the outcome you want from this situation. It's no wonder you feel desperate. You think you will have …
/r/seduction24/04/16 09:14 PM
6

I look at it this way. Decapitation prevents toothaches. Whatever circumcision does "for" a man, it destroys so much that it's not even worth considering unless his life or health is otherwise threatened.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 01:30 PM
3

The problem that a study can't address is the choice-supportive bias in U.S.-dominated media. There have been studies and critiques against circumcision by credible sources. They get ignored by the media. Meanwhile, any crank can publish a pro-circ study that never went before peers, and it makes headlines around the world. It's just the situation we're in. I think we will win, but like the fight against slavery, it will take time and may outlive us.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 02:44 PM
4

Sad testament to the uncritical nature of major media. Of course, this also fits two of the standard biases of American media: pro-circumcision and pro-feminism.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 01:27 PM
3

Thanks, /u/Eryemil, for bringing this to the fore. AAP, like many professional organizations, is political. It does no original research and it only "represents" a fraction of pediatricians. Intactivists warned that this task force was biased and motivated at the outset. There were no opponents of routine circumcision included. It's a safe bet that all the M.D.s on the committee were trained in routine circumcision, have performed circumcisions with no diagnosis, and do not have foreskins of the…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 03:15 PM
1

I soap-and-water my genital area but I never soap the glans or inner foreskin. They are membrane, not skin. Soap dehydrates them, and in my experience that causes them to absorb urine for a stink that won't wash off. Water only, and rarely. I apply pure aloe gel to the glans for better hydration and cleaner rinses. Personally I think men look ridiculous with shaven pubes and hairy legs. My wife and I trim ourselves slightly for length, but otherwise let nature be our guide.
/r/askTRP13/04/16 03:03 PM
2

The studies made the press before any peer review or critique. This page summarizes and delves into the details of all the problems with those studies.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:14 AM
3

You'd think someone would look at Europe, where almost nobody is circumcised, and think, "Why don't they have more HIV and other diseases than the U.S.?" But nobody seems to ask that question.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:13 AM
1

I believe anesthetics are an iffy proposition sometimes. My wife was told that the ring block used with women in childbirth doesn't always take, and she should be prepared for the full amount of pain, as it's too late to augment it once the baby is on the way out. Also, the block sometimes only affects one side of the spinal cord, so half-pain.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:20 PM
3

I think you'll find useful information on this at www.cirp.org.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 02:02 AM
1

Sensitivity can usually be normalized by applying pure aloe gel to the glans then closing the foreskin over it. This hydrates the membranes fully. If you've ever had dry eyes, you have some idea why.
/r/askTRP16/01/16 03:14 AM
2

Then I recommend this article and this one, written by a U.S. pediatrician (Jewish, no less) who used to circumcise then had a change of heart and mind.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:23 PM
1

If you're referring to the HIV studies, they were also conducted by people with a long history of advocating circumcision. They set the studies up to support their foregone conclusions. Also, the results were not peer-reviewed prior to publication. I've spoken with numerous health workers in Southern Africa. Most are deeply dismayed that so much funding (looking at you, Bill Gates) goes to circumcision at the cost of measures that actually help.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:00 PM
1

Why do you ask this question?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:53 PM
1

This website appears to have been written by someone with crude English skills, suggesting the information was cribbed. As others here have noted, it's the same old, disproven, pro-circumcision saws. Nothing new.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 05:29 PM
1

I think moisturization is the best remedy for hypersensitivity. Pure aloe gel under the foreskin worked for me. Also, never soap the glans and inner foreskin. They are membrane, and soap dehydrates them.
/r/askTRP29/12/15 05:49 PM
6

The good news is, it's fixable virtually every time without surgery. Here is more on phimosis, and here is a discussion board for guys dealing with it. Be sure to use the search before asking your question. (The moderator can get testy if you don't!) Above all, be wary of American doctors. Many of them only know one thing to do with a foreskin: cut it off. You don't want to lose those nerve endings and suffer a keratinized glans (NSFW). Your girl won't like the results, either. If you do see a d…
/r/askTRP29/12/15 04:35 PM
1

Actually you are at no greater risk of HIV for being intact (uncircumcised). The fact that non-circumcising Europe has lower HIV prevalence than the circumcising U.S. is proof enough.
/r/askTRP30/11/15 02:45 AM
5

OP, that third link will be especially useful to you. Great news on saving your son a lot of pain and deprivation. Now see what you can do to help your husband get past his own insecurity.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 03:32 PM
3

No. Healthy babies don't need surgery.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:22 PM
7

I have toe curling leg jiggling orgasms There's a lot more to sex than orgasm. I get sensations like that from blowjobs. My wife, whose previous husband was circumcised, says he never responded the way I do to her touch. So there's one data point.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:21 PM
3

There's a lot to this. Something about celebrities (who we think we all know) give us a common link. A tragedy befalling one of them seems much bigger because we all think we know the person. I'm remembering someone saying that the death of the Lindbergh baby, who was kidnapped for ransom, triggered government action which, overnight, made kidnapping a thing of the past.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:06 PM
8

I wonder if he even knows the circumcision of the Torah didn't remove the whole foreskin. What he's talking about was a 2nd century AD invention by Jewish high priests to keep Jewish males from commingling too easily with the Greeks in the gymnasiums. More on the physical differences here, with possibly NSFW line drawings. Many Jews I talk to aren't aware of this. Unfortunately, they tend to defend the status quo anyway, rather than question a 2000 year old man-made decree.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 03:18 PM
3

Everything you need is a www.cirp.org.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 01:44 PM
1

It might be useful to poll women on each side of the Atlantic, what with circumcision so widely practiced in the States. I just know I've never heard a woman praise her "American lover" or "Jewish lover." It's always a European or Latin American.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 08:47 PM
1

I'm thinking he typed opposite of what he meant. Either way, there's no evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/15 07:23 PM
1

A Victorian, prudish culture and fee-for-service medicine. Also a phenomenon called positivism that gave the technologically advanced U.S a little too much belief in its educated class's ability to control nature.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 05:57 PM
3

Not dumb. There just wasn't a lot of rigorous thinking on this in the 40s. It also played into the deep-seated desire among many people to control the sexuality of others. All that needs is a medical excuse to start cutting.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 05:43 PM
3

That's why it continues. It didn't start that way -- as I understand, military doctors in WWII noticed their Jewish soldiers were a lot less likely to show up with VD. What they didn't take into account was that they were less likely to defile themselves with prostitutes, being more religious than the typical recruit.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 02:29 PM
1

why to people buy desensitizing cream to delay ejaculation My guess is they want to control sex, rather than surrender to the moment. There may also be a number of men who do ejaculate too fast for their own, and/or their girl's, pleasure. I think that's a psychological issue, not a physical one. Some say it's the way boys learn sex, from masturbating, where they have to finish fast to reduce the risk of getting caught. That carries over into actual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 10:26 PM
1

Yep.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 07:29 PM
2

If you're suggesting that intact men ejaculate sooner than circumcised men, there is no factual basis for that. It's something circumcised males tell each other to avoid confronting their loss.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 07:27 PM
2

Men who say they're happy about being circumcised aren't making any sense. They have no idea what they're missing. It's as if I were to say I don't like escargot, even though I've never had the dish. I'm actually being dishonest. Further, those who have gotten themselves circumcised as adults and claim it's the same or better are likely suffering a human fault called cognitive dissonance, the ability to rationalize a bad, irreversible decision. Honest assessments of what circumcision does to a m…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:07 PM
6

Pretty horrible that Western medical entities are pushing circumcision as an AIDS fix to uneducated Africans, when it hasn't even worked in the West.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 03:03 PM
2

Print this article and this one. Print them, don't link. Links can be ignored. Deliver the articles and let the matter rest. You did your best and it's out of your hands. If there's any possibility one of them may be wavering, you could send them a link to one of those YouTube videos of a live circumcision. I don't know anyone who can sit through that and still come out pro-circ, especially with their own baby.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:27 PM
4

The phimosis discussion board can help you, including effective stretching techniques that many doctors don't know about.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 01:44 AM
2

My wife did this to me multiple times, and I couldn't figure out what it was until I asked her. She was pressing her tongue directly on my frenulum and rapidly flicking it, hard. Made my eyes water, it felt so good. It doesn't lead to orgasm, but it might as well.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:29 PM
2

I don't think you'll find one word that doesn't offend somebody. Many of the circumcised don't like "intact" because they feel like they're inadequate, deprived, or victimized. Many of the intact don't like "uncircumcised" for the same reason they don't like "unmastectomized" for women. Which nobody says, but they have a point. To your point about what's "normal," I'm in the U.S. and intact and I know I'm not "normal" in the societal sense. But I'm over it. Frankly, I think "uncut" is too casual…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:30 PM
1

Yeah, I sent her a message about that.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:02 AM
5

She's good, but I think she oversimplifies things a bit. The money claim can be easily discounted by a doctor stating truthfully) that he doesn't get any money for the foreskins he cuts off. The hospital or practice does. Now, that means there's pressure on him to circumcise (imagine being the only doc in a practice that won't do it -- this will show up in his financial statistics), but technically he doesn't get a check from a cosmetic company for every foreskin he sends in. IMO the real reason…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:41 PM
3

He may not have any issues then. I've found a lot of intact guys (like me) felt like the "only one" growing up in the U.S. with a foreskin. You're a lucky girl (SFW), in case you haven't realized it.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:33 PM
2

In the past couple of months, some researchers in Europe found a corellation between infant circumcision and the later development of autism. It wasn't 100 percent, but it was statistically significant. The news had a short tail in the U.S. Is your boyfriend U.S. born?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:29 PM
1

OK, just don't overclean. That will dry out your foreskin and possibly make the phimosis last longer, or return. Try the pure aloe gel. I use it daily for hydration. EDIT: typo
/r/MensRights27/04/15 12:48 PM
2

Have you tried moisturizing the inner foreskin with pure aloe gel?
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:08 PM
2

I'm glad you solved it this way, but OP and others ought to know it's not the best or safest method. What works better is to pull the foreskin away from the body instead of toward it.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:07 PM
1

Phimosis is fixable virtually every time without surgery. Here is more on phimosis, and here is a discussion board for guys dealing with it. Be sure to use the search before asking your question. (The moderator can get testy if you don't!) Many American doctors only know one thing to do with a foreskin: cut it off. If you do see a doctor, try to find a foreskin-friendly one.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:06 PM
3

Some people are eager for a "let's you and him fight" scene because they aren't invested in it. Good on you for trying to work together.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:02 PM
3

no non-American organization in the world supports it Here's the citation for that.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:00 PM
1

does future hubby vote GOP? I haven't seen anything in the GOP platform about cutting healthy parts off healthy babies.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:59 PM
1

I can't help but feel quality of life (and more specifically sex) would be greatly diminished for circumcised people. Correct. Although circumcised men find this extremely difficult to face.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:58 PM
3

The boy doesn't have to do much until he's older. There's a natural separation process (SFW video by a doctor) that he will "help" along instinctively. Until his foreskin fully separates from his glans, nothing needs to be done. Even after that, the inner foreskin is self-cleansing, like the inner eyelids. For health reasons it does not need intrusive cleaning. Hygiene is another matter, and he'll pick up on that when he approaches his teens. (Soap is always bad, which is one point that not many…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:56 PM
3

Here is what worked for a friend whose husband was the archetypal "adamant dad" about circumcision. Print this article and this one. Print; do not link. Links can be ignored. Give him paper copies in an envelope or folder and tell him you want to discuss the articles after he has read them. After a day or two, ask if he's read them. If he hasn't, give him one more day. If he has read them, have a sit-down discussion. If, at the end of that conversation, he's still adamant, show him the YouTube v…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 01:59 PM
1

For one thing, I love handjobs. My wife has learned to roll the skin over the glans and back, which thrills me. Sometimes she just holds her hand still while I thrust in and out of it. Feels so good I can't stop. Then there are the blowjobs. She found the frenulum and makes use of it to trigger my orgasm, once she's ready for it. But she takes her time getting there. Her favorite trick is to roll the foreskin closed, slide her tongue in, and swirl. She'll slow down when she's ready for me to sto…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:45 PM
8

They actually published an excellent multi-part series on circumcision.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:46 PM
1

Ethically, it takes away from a person something healthy that he was born with. I don't know how to simplify the "wrong" more than that.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 01:27 PM
7

/r/female_circumcision (nsfw and not for the squeamish)
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:29 PM
3

I once located a study online that showed 0.3 percent of intact males volunteering to be circumcised. I believe it was in Denmark, possibly Finland. Studies on this can be complicated. Circumcision isn't a "reportable" procedure, meaning there's no official government record. So records would have to be looked up at individual doctors' offices and hospitals, which takes money. So to get the answer, you'd have to raise money, which puts you in competition for grants with people who are trying to …
/r/MensRights02/04/15 01:53 PM
1

Glad you're happy. For others, the lingering effects are noticeable. Some effects can be measured. Here's a trove of studies on the long-term effects of infant circumcision on males. In short, cutting healthy parts off healthy babies is a bad idea. Not sure why we need studies to "prove" that, but here we are.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 02:55 PM
2

We had one of these. The one we got was way too big for a newborn so we draped it over his bassinet where it could not be ignored. I also followed him wherever they took him (never letting him out of my sight) and noticed the staff elbowing each other when they saw the shirt. Many of the nurses smiled in approval.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 01:54 PM
3

Or listen to the screams. I think Youtube has prevented more circumcisions than anything else.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 08:37 PM
5

Well, here are some "civilized" circumcisions. (NSFW, NSFL for injured babies)
/r/MensRights15/03/15 01:54 PM
2

Was blessed with a family doctor who wouldn't circumcise, even at the height of the circumcision fad in the U.S. Haven't looked back since.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:33 PM
2

Not circumcised and do not want it.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:58 PM
8

Plenty of political leftists like circumcision, too. And plenty of righties oppose it.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 02:41 PM
2

Dr. Paul Fleiss' landmark article.. Print it out for her. His follow-up. For those who've heard all the wrong arguments. Finally, sit down with her and play one of the YouTube infant circumcision videos, with the sound up so she can hear the screams.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:25 PM
1

www.cirp.org www.circumstitions.com
/r/MensRights15/12/14 02:08 PM
1

You shouldn't be downvoted for asking an innocent question. The "big deal" is, circumcision of an infant removes the most sensitive part of his penis and forces the glans to adapt as an external organ. That's a choice virtually no adult male ever makes for himself, because he can imagine what it would do to him. That alone means no one should choose circumcision for a baby.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:17 PM
2

CDC is staffed by doctors who have been or currently are paid to perform circumcisions. They're also mostly American and circumcised themselves. Might as well ask the cotton traders of the 1830s about the issue of slavery.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:15 PM
0

Decapitation prevents tooth decay.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:14 PM
1

LOL I once surprised my wife with a chocolate chip. Was a little too unexpected.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:10 PM
2

And the body. This one was discovered by accident.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:08 PM
2

Your BF is unconsciously projecting his own insecurities over not knowing what he missed by not having his foreskin. But confronting that directly won't work. Here's what a friend of mine in your situation did, and it worked: Print this article and this one, hand them to him, and say you want to talk about them when he's done reading. (It's important to use printed copies for this. Links can get ignored.) If he's not convinced by the time you have your discussion, boot up the computer and watch …
/r/MensRights12/12/14 01:28 PM
1

This link works: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0001
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:15 PM
1

Here's a more direct link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0001
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:15 PM
1

Well, something like it is true. Maybe there's a reason some women speak so fondly about their "Latin lover" or "European lover," and not so much about one who's American or Jewish.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 10:37 PM
1

You likely won't get an honest answer. There's a tendency among humans to defend decisions that cannot be reversed, regardless of how objectively foolish the decision.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 10:34 PM
1

some historians think circumcision started out as a way to promote hygiene among the ancient Israelites Nope, and I'd be surprised if any credible historian thought so. Circumcision never had to do with hygiene. In fact, the circumcision of Moses' time didn't even expose the glans. It was a bloodletting, common to prehistoric peoples. Here is more on the history of circumcision.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 07:28 PM
1

Are you referring to the sand myth?
/r/MensRights10/12/14 02:36 PM
2

Meh. I'm intact and although I often have what feels like mini-orgasms during sex, they don't rise to the level of the big one.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 01:35 PM
1

Maybe your glans is dehydrated from overcleaning.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 01:35 PM
3

CDC is reputable ... for now. This shilling for paid-to-circumcise doctors will hurt them, especially since no other nation's medical authority agrees.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 02:25 PM
0

Your glans will only be oversensitive if you clean it too aggressively. At least that's been my experience.
/r/seduction21/11/14 06:32 PM
2

I was born in the U.S. at the height of the circumcision fad, and was not circumcised thanks to a skeptical doctor. In his view, the foreskin is there for good reason, and whether you think God or evolution put it there, you're right. When I see claims of "benefits" from circumcision, I wince. There are benefits to most anything; doesn't decapitation prevent headaches? More seriously, this is the only medical procedure that cuts healthy tissue off healthy bodies without the consent of the one be…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 02:44 PM
1

The tragedy is, you think you're serious.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 03:02 PM
1

There are no benefits to having one's head removed. No more cavities. Saves time toothbrushing.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 01:22 PM
3

There are legitimate benefits (not without risks of course) to circumcision This is rather like saying there are benefits to decapitation. It's justifying after the fact. Circumcision was never tested before adoption. It appeals to a nascent need to control male sexuality, and that's why it persists despite the abundance of evidence that it hurts and does no good.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 02:13 PM
3

I had a similar story growing up. An intactivist summed it up this way: "It's how circumcision even hurts the non-circumcised."
/r/MensRights29/07/14 01:50 PM
1

It's surgery done without a diagnosis. Doctors pretending they know better than God/nature. The only procedure rolled out without so much as a trial to prove its worth. Why does reddit have such an issue with circumcision? We're free to talk about it here, unlike in real life. Are most redditors not circumcised? Doubtful, because Reddit is heavily American, the last major country still circumcising. But the ones who aren't cut have a lot to say about what we see as a sexual deprivation. Circumci…
/r/MensRights27/06/14 04:19 PM
1

You know there are women that say the exact same thing you do in Africa about their circumcision. I've seen this, and it's astonishing at first. Then I realize that people can say all sorts of bizarre things when bizarre things have happened to them. Like having part of their genitals cut off.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:44 PM
2

This could be applied to male nipples, too. If a father lost his nipples to some sort of accident, would he be entitled to have his sons' nipples amputated, too?
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:42 PM
5

It's surgery done without a diagnosis.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 01:30 PM
1

If it were me, I would look into stretching first. Surgery could cut nerves and leave you in worse shape. Phimosis is fixable virtually every time without surgery. Here is more on phimosis, and here is a discussion board for guys dealing with it. Be sure to use the search before asking your question. (The moderator can get testy if you don't!)
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:00 PM
-5

The opposite of love is indifference. You cannot say you love others if you ignore when they hurt themselves. OP, you are correct.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 02:00 AM
1

Sorry to disagree on your first point, but you do have a right to an opinion on male circumcision, just as I (male) have a right to an opinion on FGM. In fact, the anti-circumcision movement in America is led mostly by females. Homeschooling does not cause social issues. I wondered about that (everyone does) before I got more familiar with it.
/r/RedPillWomen27/04/14 12:32 PM
3

Be gentle. People get defensive about any suggestion that they are mistreating their children. Once you set that off, it's much more difficult to get past it. I'd open the conversation with, "So, what's your doctor telling you about circumcision?" That puts it on the doctor, not on the parent, so you will be arguing with someone else. Keep it that way. Remember that it would never occur to us to slice healthy bits off a healthy baby if the medical establishment weren't behind it. By asking this …
/r/MensRights22/04/14 12:09 PM
0

That's how it tends to be with them. They have an occasional great idea, then add too much stuff to it.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:30 PM
3

Something intactivists have always needed is a good PR or ad agency. They're too passionate and close to the subject to make good art.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:52 PM
5

Circumcision is virtually never the right answer for phimosis, if that's what you're hinting at. Better education of (American) doctors is at issue there.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:51 PM
2

Testimonials here.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:50 PM
2

As a stranger, my arguments aren't worth much to anyone. I always send people to this landmark article, by a Jewish doctor no less, who used to do circumcisions then stopped. He lays out the facts and concludes there's no good reason to cut healthy tissue off a healthy baby. He wrote this followup for parents who choose against circumcision -- handy when the second-guessers start butting in. In case it's useful, I grew up intact in a cohort that was 85 percent circumcised. (It's down to 54 perce…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 02:01 PM
0

How many mothers attended these events?
/r/MensRights26/03/14 09:29 PM
0

Glen Calender is always very knowledgeable and well spoken in interviews... Perhaps this is true. But most people see the bizarre, newsmaking side only. Further, the "CAN FAP" acronym brands them as interested in helping children masturbate. That's not how you introduce yourself to anyone you hope to persuade.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 06:34 PM
1

it's about the personal autonomy of the child Of course it is. But the parents make the decision. They will probably side with the educated people in the white lab coats. Not with the street performers.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 06:32 PM
2

Honest question: What would you say the average mother/father thinks of this? Those are the people doing the circumcising.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 04:03 PM
-1

There are thousands of people who seriously want to end circumcision, and they work on the issue in ways that actually persuade parents against it. These guys are nothing but clowns and exhibitionists using circumcision as an excuse to call attention to themselves.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:22 PM
1

Actually you should never soap the glans and inner foreskin. They're membrane, and soap dries them out. Water rinse only, and rarely.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:16 PM
3

This was predicted years ago. Unfortunately, the circumcision brigade has no ears for anything but circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 12:49 PM
3

Like this, or like this. (NSFW text)
/r/MensRights06/02/14 04:01 AM
6

It makes no sense to this American, either. Probably because I escaped the cut. Actually, it makes no sense at all. We do it to infants who can't stop us.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:59 AM
4

Same story for me. I haven't exactly led a porn star life, but I've had to retrain two women on blowjobs. Once they learned to go easier on me, they've realized the ROI on an intact guy is much more in their favor. And a lot less tiring.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 01:28 PM
4

If you fish around cirp.org, you'll find studies that point toward this. (Here's one.) It's a hard thing to prove because it would take 20 or more years to truly evaluate, and emotional-mental issues are complicated. Still, here's a recent observation that may have merit. It's getting the usual responses: Intactivists nodding, everybody else ignoring.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 12:41 PM
2

The good news is, this has been fixed many times by many other guys without surgery. Here is more on phimosis, and here is a discussion board for guys dealing with it. Be sure to use the search before asking your question. (The moderator can get testy if you don't!) Many doctors, especially American-trained ones, know only know one thing to do with a foreskin: cut it off. You don't want to lose those nerve endings and suffer a keratinized glans (NSFW). Your girl won't like the results, either. I…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 12:54 PM
2

You're welcome to believe that. EDIT: Let me clarify. I try to regard others with love. I fail often, but I do try. The philosophy of "whatever you do to yourself is OK" doesn't square with that, because it compels us to indifference over others' suffering as long as they say they're OK with being disordered. It is not loving to be indifferent toward another's self-destructive behaviors. If it were, then we'd be fine with letting our alcoholic friends destroy their lives, or our bulimic friends …
/r/MensRights22/11/13 04:05 PM
1

If he were a friend of mine I would counsel against it. Wanting to cut off your own healthy flesh is not a sign of mental stability.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:03 PM
-1

This is correct. "Modern hygiene" makes no difference. In my experience there's as much harm in overwashing as in underwashing.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 12:42 PM
1

U.S.-born intact father of an intact son here. Wife and I agreed on no surgery for a healthy baby. However, I have counseled a couple who disagreed (at first), and here is what worked for them. She printed off this article and this one (by a Jewish doctor, no less), and gave them to him in an envelope. She told him she wanted to discuss them after he'd read them. He came back to her in a week and said he'd changed his mind. The key here is letting him change his own views. That gets his ego out …
/r/MensRights25/10/13 02:32 PM
4

I hate that word, "uncircumcised." It's defining something by what hasn't been done to it. "I have an unmastectomized wife."
/r/MensRights11/10/13 10:23 PM
1

www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html The definitive article, from a pediatrician who used to circumcise.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:26 AM
5

"So, what happens when the anesthesia wears off, and the wound is trying to heal in a diaper full of hot urine and feces?" Then there's a lifetime of sensory deprivation. Also, some new evidence that circumcision correlates with an inability to express emotions. And it may inhibit hip flexibility. What we don't know about genital cutting dwarfs what we do know.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 12:29 PM
10

I believe YouTube is responsible for more changed minds on this matter than any other medium.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:23 PM
3

Here is a list. I haven't checked them out myself.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 03:44 PM
11

I had the experience counseling a mom-to-be on this, and she got her hardcore husband to come around not with "Over my dead body!" threats but by showing him this article and this one in hard copy and saying, "Let me know when you've read them. I want to talk about this. It's important to me." So, he had to face the facts on his own. Can't do that by sending him links he will never follow, or by letting him get away without discussing what he has read. But as importantly, she still let it be his…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 12:14 PM
2

Agreed. I do wish she hadn't referred to "soap" and negatively compared boys "in the wild" who aren't circumcised. There's no evidence to support that (often called the "sand myth"), and soap is terrible for the glans and inner foreskin.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 12:27 PM
2

This is probably what separates the foreskin from the glans.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 01:42 AM
24

I grew up intact and have an intact son. The best general advice is from Dr. Paul Fleiss: leave it alone. The glans and inner foreskin are fused together, like fingernail and nail bed, at birth. They remain that way usually for several years, closing the surfaces to contamination. The frequent outflow of urine further protects them. No cleaning is necessary. In fact, forcing the foreskin open to clean inside probably raises the chance of infection. The foreskin separates from the glans between a…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:51 PM
-1

If you're a Jew, you should have the opportunity to learn that the circumcision practiced since the 2nd Century A.D. is not what the Torah prescribes. So, although it's not your intent to complicate your son's admission to Greek gymnasiums, that's what periah was intended to do.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:34 PM
3

Clue. Less. Print this out and give it to her without comment. She has some growing up to do, and you can't do that for her.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:04 PM
1

No. Source.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:15 PM
1

There are African men who won't have sex with a female whose labia haven't been trimmed or excised. It's fucked up no matter who sees the human body as an unfinished project.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:37 PM
0

You will get anecdotes all over the place. Here's mine: Sex with a dozen American women before I married, and I never talked about being intact beforehand. Most were indifferent, some asked why, and a few were fascinated. Nobody turned me down. I married one of the fascinated ones, but not for that reason. It will not be an issue unless you treat it as one. Present yourself well (wash rarely, never with soap, and rinse before oral - this keeps your glans from dehydrating so it doesn't absorb uri…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:15 AM
1

the largest driving force behind circumcision is still religion Not in the U.S. Only about 5 percent can claim religion as justification. But 50 percent of newborns are circumcised. It's money-driven. In states where Medicaid stopped paying for it, private insurers followed suit. The circ rate plummeted.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:12 AM
1

Most people would say that we should look at the intent behind the action, the damage being done, the suffering being caused or a combination of the three. I agree on intent. The desire to control others' sexuality is a projection of one's inability to control one's own urges. Kind of like successful dieters wanting to outlaw Big Gulps, or former smokers wanting cigarettes outlawed. They want validation of their effort. It's an emotional problem. In sexual matters, circumcision (or any genital m…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 12:37 PM
3

Yeah, there's a hundreds-million-strong control group called the United States, which has circumcised most of its infant boys since the 1950s. (As many as 90 percent in the '60s.) That generation went on to spread HIV and all the other STIs. Meanwhile the Europeans circumcised virtually none. Who has the worse record for STIs? It's a dead heat. I will say it is fucking awesome when it comes to jacking it. That's not all.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:13 PM
1

I am never surprised when leftists think they're not leftists.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 07:24 PM
1

I think we do agree that most opposition to RIC comes from the left, yes? And my explanation for that -- based on 15 years' involvement in state, national, and international intactivism -- is that it appeals to alienists, who tend toward the left end of the spectrum.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:22 PM
1

When did you realize you'd been had?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 05:20 PM
1

In fairness, I know a number of political conservatives who don't circumcise their sons. Sometimes known as "crunchy cons." That said, I also think intactivism attracts people who are predisposed to dislike much of what America is (alienists) and are constantly out to change things. And circumcision, anymore, is pretty much an American thing. And it's wrong. So they feel really righteous going after it.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 05:19 PM
1

I think of it as a bloodletting. Wasn't uncommon among primitive peoples, to remind the males they would be called on to shed blood in defense of the village.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:10 PM
5

Christians who think they're supposed to circumcise are flat-out mistaken. What's worse is, the circumcision of biblical times is not what's been practiced since the 2nd century.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:45 PM
1

True. I wouldn't count that as "want to," though.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 09:41 PM
3

Is this a good sign? No, but we'll take all we can get. Or is it expected since they're usually mothers? Yes, because a woman's instinct is to protect her baby. The scary thing is mothers who want to circumcise. Castration issues there. Or is it a bad sign that more men aren't speaking up? Bad sign, because it means those men haven't dealt with what's happened to them. It's the fox without a tail situation. It's sad for the boys they father, because the only reason they're getting cut is because…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:47 PM
0

Same thing the nerve endings in your lips have to do with kissing.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:24 PM
1

What do those nerve endings cut off have to do with sex? Only a circumcised male would ask that question. EDIT: Let me put that in a more helpful way. What would cutting your lips off have to do with kissing? You'd still have a tongue. Shouldn't the circumcised men last longer or not be able to cum at all? There are too many other variables for a clear cause-effect on that particular point.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:30 PM
1

Now, why shouldn't a parent choose this when they can choose their child's education, the community they grow up in, their entertainment, their diet, and whether or not they can drive or take up sports/an instrument before they're 18? Why isn't it just part of parenting? Which of your examples involves cutting healthy flesh off a healthy child's body?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:38 PM
0

It's called cognitive dissonance, or buyer's remorse. Powerful human psychology.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:37 PM
0

That is the only way one could ever know if circumcision had any effect on sexual function. No, brah, you use your common sense. Cut half the nerve endings off your penis and keratinize the glans (NSFW), you're going to impair its form and function. I understand why circumcised men might go to great lengths to believe that's not true. But really, trying to make this into a perfect lab experiment is just overkill.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:33 PM
1

Even worse (NSFL - injured babies). The foreskin is a healthy part of a healthy body. When has surgery without diagnosis ever been "okay"?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:17 PM
2

Why limit the question to Redditors? Here are some non-Reddit testimonials.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 01:43 PM
2

I wouldn't fault religion in general as much as the people's insistence on incorporating a longstanding blood rite into their new faith.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 04:05 PM
7

Oh, this happened. In Jewish law, if three sons die from circumcision, the fourth one does not have to be circumcised. Don't tell me they made up that rule in anticipation, instead of reaction.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 03:12 PM
2

The sand myth.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 03:11 PM
4

Your #2 negates your #1. If we don't talk about circumcision, we can't expose the lies that perpetuate it.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 02:10 PM
1

I haven't heard that the nerve endings can be restored. But how many were lost depends on how the skin was cut.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:06 PM
8

Correct. Even phimosis is treatable in almost every case by conservative therapies.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:28 PM
2

An objective look at the methodology makes it glaringly clear these RCTs were contrived for the sole purpose of proving the researchers' thesis correct. That nothing similar (reduction in HIV prevalence/transmission via circumcision) has ever occurred in the real world underscores this.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 01:00 PM
1

Not true.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:31 PM
1

IMO the two best articles you can provide are this one and this one. They're clinical and real-world, written by a practicing pediatrician who quit circumcising after many years. The "founder" of intacivism is a nurse (Marilyn Milos). She turned against circumcision after having to assist with one. The closest one can get to that experience is to see (and hear) a YouTube video -- here is one that's probably persuaded more parents than anything else on the Internet. Thank you for making this effo…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:35 PM
3

An uncircumcised penis is more sensitive. Not disagreeing, just clarifying for the benefit of all. It's more a matter of sensation, not just sensitivity. This counters the old macho, "Well, I'm sensitive enough!" defense, with the implication that males with foreskin go off quicker, leaving their girls unsatisfied. There's no evidence of that, but there is evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:41 PM
3

This stuff is still going on today with the Plastibell. (NSFL seriously injured babies)
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:54 PM
0

The link works. I don't get this bot.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:19 PM
5

Here is the smackdown for that argument.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:15 PM
1

It didn't make sense in biblical times, and it got further messed up along the way by the authorities, too. Here is the definitive case against circumcision, if it's authority you're looking for. And here is useful information for you from the same doctor.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:03 PM
1

Good. One footnote: There's some evidence that washing after sex actually raises the risk of contracting HIV, for men.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:58 AM
1

Interesting but not all that persuasive IMO, and I agree with him on all points. Here is the landmark article "The Case Against Circumcision," and its follow-up for parents who make the right decision.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:06 PM
1

I think you've actually struck the right balance here. To realize that routine circumcision isn't good, but to "forgive" (by not holding a grudge against) your parents -- well, that's admirable.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 12:11 PM
4

No, it is important to make known the value of the foreskin. Because the only reason anyone can believe it should be cut off is, they believe it has no value. They put it in a category with the appendix, which surgeons used to remove if they were operating for something nearby. Now we know better about the appendix, but we keep up this "foreskin doesn't matter" thing because we don't want to face the reality of what's going on. I'm as sorry as you are for what happened to 80 percent of the boys …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:41 PM
1

From CNN (text).
/r/MensRights26/09/12 11:24 AM
2

This is such a pointless waste of time. No one can sensibly compare two different actions done to two different organs. The only valid comparison is the motive: controlling others' sexuality. In that sense, the procedures are identical.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:37 PM
2

I haven't taken any notes on these cases; I just remember reading about two of them. They usually involved divorces where the mother or father later decides to circumcise the boy, who by then is of an age to know what's going on. Might Google divorce, circumcision, custody, Judaism, and see what you find.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:37 PM
3

You're going to have to do better to make it in the scientific community. Only if you're against circumcision. You can have a long history of pro-circumcision activities, then come up with some shonky HIV studies in Africa, and you'll be celebrated all over the U.S. EDIT: link added
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:54 PM
3

I don't think this is actual law. But there have been civil cases where the mother and father disagree on circumcision and wind up in court.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:53 PM
2

There was a study begun in the U.S. on pain during circumcision, and the doctors conducting it stopped after they focused on how much pain they were causing.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:52 PM
3

It's important to point out that the surgery was done without anesthesia. Anesthesia wears off, and there's about a week of painful healing that follows. Circumcision is the only wound we bandage with a compress of urine and fecal matter.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:51 PM
0

I don't get into these fights. Two different structures cannot be the same. It's the motivation behind them that's identical: A desire to contain the sexuality of others. It's behind male circumcision even though it's covered with a series of false medical claims.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 07:26 PM
7

Graphic pictures of infant circumcision complications here. NSFL; don't say I didn't warn you.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 02:18 PM
6

There's also the "look like Daddy" claim, which is projection. The adamant father is the hardest case, in my experience.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 02:18 PM
1

Like sight without color, from men who have experienced both. Here is more on intactness from a man's perspective. And women don't like circumcision, either, even if they don't know it.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:16 PM
1

Maimonides. He also said the foreskin makes it more difficult for a woman to leave a man. This study, though flawed, supports that idea, though why Maimonides thought that separating men and women was a good idea, I don't know. Given that there are estrogen receptors in the foreskin, and small amounts of estrogen in a man's bloodstream lower his risk of heart disease, I think there's much more to this than anyone yet knows. Anyway, more on the history of circumcision here and here.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:15 PM
1

PM me if you want ideas. I have a success story.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:45 AM
2

This. Exercising that kind of control over a child points to serious insecurities.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:36 PM
2

This is known as the Adamant Father and he's the hardest nut to crack.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:57 PM
1

Downvote me if you want, but I've found that orthodox Christians are among the best for this. They recognize their sinful nature and deal with it day-by-day, knowing that a loving God forgives them when they have the humility to ask him for it. Too many others think they're only loved if they are right all the time. So they can't admit fault.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:57 PM
2

Agreed. The RCT studies were rejected by The Lancet on ethical grounds. The publishers went to PLOS and paid to have the studies published. They were never peer-reviewed. There's a good critique here, but it got little notice in the media -- confirmation bias, most likely. Use your common sense here. The U.S. has been circumcising most of its boys for 60+ years. Europe, none. HIV showed up in both populations simultaneously. Which one has more HIV prevalence? The U.S., by a slight margin. It did…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 04:20 PM
1

www.cirp.org www.mothersagainstcircumcision.org www.circumstitions.com
/r/MensRights28/08/12 03:36 PM
3

In the U.S., it's done away from the parents for good reason. They would never do it again after they heard the screaming. As for anesthetic, it's up to the doctor. Some think it's dangerous to use, so they don't, and nobody's the wiser.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 05:04 PM
12

Where was father?
/r/MensRights10/08/12 04:57 PM
4

Please let the sweet voice of reason do your talking for you. And here's the follow-up.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:31 AM
9

Actually, starting with Maimonides the motivation was precisely to hurt men sexually. Kellogg and the Victorians took it and ran with it. Now we've rationalized it as a medical thing, but that's a crock and most doctors I've talked with know it. They just do it to please the parents, which is why so few doctors' sons are circumcised. And I'm more than a little suspicious that the subconscious motive of some parents is to control their boys' sexuality. Why else would they persist in finding a new…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:30 AM
2

"like sight without color" Or, from the female perspective.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:37 PM
4

If you're looking for affirmation, go to www.circlist.com. It's full of people who think circumcision's just the best thing ever!
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:47 PM
5

Hygiene is an overblown issue. Did you know, for example, that women make smegma, too? Under the clitoral hood. But nobody thinks that's a reason to operate on them. I'm over 40 and in my lifetime I haven't seen enough smegma to fill a thimble. Wash before oral sex. That is absolutely all that's necessary. Otherwise, it's up to the individual what he wants for himself. I used to overclean (soap and water daily) under my foreskin, and all I got was a shrunken foreskin and a hypersensitive glans. …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:27 AM
3

Change means many different things. So does "conservative." Did you know, for example, that the American Revolution was essentially a conservative movement? It was a rebellion against the reimposition of rule by King George. Once the Colonists had gotten to enjoy liberty and making their own laws, they bristled at the resumption of top-down management. Of course, in those days, this was called "liberalism," because liberal meant free. As for circumcision, it's a recent imposition on males, havin…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 09:32 PM
1

You are correct. Circumcision actually destroys one component of the immune system: the Langerhans cells in the foreskin that attract viruses then kill them with secretions of langerin. Relatedly, in my view HIV barely qualifies as a traditional STD. It's more like hepatitis, in that it can be spread through sexual contact, but mainly through sexual contact that results in an opening to the bloodstream through which the virus can enter via contaminated semen. I.e., unprotected anal intercourse. …
/r/MensRights21/07/12 01:56 AM
2

There is an undercurrent of belief that HIV is spread in sub-Saharan Africa by poor medical practice. Studies at cirp.org point to this.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:08 PM
3

Confirmation bias in the U.S. media.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:07 PM
2

Well done. You must have good conversational skills.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 12:44 PM
1

There may be something to that. I've often wondered why so many white guys (in the U.S.) dance with such a stiff pelvis. My generation of males didn't much like dancing at all, I think because the girls and the black/Hispanic guys looked so much better doing it.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 01:22 AM
3

What's funny about this is, the intact penis is in a certain sense more female than a circumcised one. The foreskin is a container, enveloping the glans, making it less a protrusion and more like the internal organ (as it was designed). Also, the inner foreskin secretes smegma, just like under the clitoral hood.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 08:18 PM
1

It's hardly a textbook experiment. Still, pretty stark results for not being planned. There's an Australian forensic physician who has a running bet with his students, that he can determine whether a cadaver is circumcised by making one incision into the lower back. If he finds a multiplicity of nerves around the hip bones, he knows the man was circumcised in infancy.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:16 AM
2

http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=130
/r/MensRights07/07/12 07:38 PM
2

I haven't tried to evaluate the multiplicity of studies on that basis. However, two that I'm familiar with appear to fit. There's the "cobra pose" finding, where a researcher who'd never looked into circumcision's effects on the body discovered by accident that it appears to inhibit hip flexibility in young boys. (Can't get to my links now, but you can Google with those key words.) Also a clinic in Seattle did a well-controlled study of patients and found circumcision status did not correlate wi…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 04:44 PM
1

Help me out here. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "objective" with regard to circumcision. Does membership in DOC disqualify them from your definition of objective? Is a doctor who performs circumcisions for pay also disqualified? What about a researcher with a long history of concluding that circumcision is an improvement on the human body? What if he receives money from the Gates Foundation, which has never sponsored research or activity that views circumcision negatively? I'm unaware …
/r/MensRights07/07/12 12:17 PM
1

Hugh Young and others take those studies to the mat here. A more concise academic takedown is here
/r/MensRights07/07/12 01:44 AM
2

www.circumstitions.com
/r/MensRights06/07/12 01:20 AM
0

Read my comment history.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 08:20 PM
1

I'm thinking more about the guys who get put off by the term "mutilated," shoot the messenger, then circumcise their sons to cover their insecurities. It would be much more productive to address the issue with language that connects, rather than repels.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 08:47 PM
1

I'm intact, so my feelings aren't at stake.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:57 PM
2

I actually did that when I had a yeast infection. (Started on my leg when I slid into a base; it spread to my groin before I knew what was going on.) At first it felt kinda good, but the resulting erections were troublesome. Then it just felt irritating. Eventually the miconazole did its job and I was able to put my foreskin back in place. The body's defense against this kind of exposure is keratinization (NSFW) of the glans. I think the "pleasure" nerve endings also retract from the surface, le…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:55 PM
1

circumcised vs. intact Although I usually introduce "intact" after "uncircumcised." Few people outside of intactivism are familiar with "intact," but "uncircumcised" isn't a good fit. You wouldn't say that someone's ears are "unpierced," because it suggests they ought to be.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 04:34 PM
0

I really wish we would all drop the word "mutilated" when talking about this sensitive subject. No man wants to feel he's been "mutilated." It's hard enough for him to accept that when he was at his most helpless and dependent, the people who cared for him had him strapped down and his penis cut on without his permission.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 03:51 PM
1

Same story, earlier decade. Wish I'd known then what I know now. Why the fuck are parents so afraid to talk about sex?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 03:44 PM
5

I can tell you that as a circumcised male, I have never had a problem with decreased sensitivity. Two things: One, you don't know what sensitivity would feel like if you still had your foreskin. Two, the difference isn't "sensitivity" but sensation. These guys describe the loss as like sight without color. But I know what you're getting at: the common belief that men who fuck longer before ejaculating "win," and that sensitivity is the determining factor. Both precepts are wrong. The power of th…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:14 PM
8

I don't think you understood me. You don't remove a healthy cervix because it might get diseased someday. Nor a prostate gland. The only organ we used to treat like the foreskin was the appendix, and most physicians don't do that anymore.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:14 PM
10

I think most medical professionals could benefit from this presentation, which is offered to medical schools as part of a "foreskin curriculum." Apparently many schools teach little about the foreskin other than to cut it off. For professionals and nonprofessionals, the best reading out there is Dr. Fleiss' original article, and his follow-up. Once you understand what the foreskin does, the claims about infections don't make sense. The foreskin protects the urethra from infection. Stripping it a…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:16 PM
2

Second this. If you still feel energy within you over this, turn it into something positive.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 01:23 AM
1

Yeah, circumcision peaked in the U.S. from about 1950-1970. Some military doctors thought it reduced STIs. They didn't take into account that their circumcised soldiers were almost all observant Jews and therefore less likely to diddle around with prostitutes.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:10 PM
1

In the U.S., circumcision used to be standard procedure for military recruits. So there's that to think about.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:59 PM
1

Source, please.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:52 AM
1

Because.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 02:52 PM
6

Slicing off women's breasts without diagnosis has real medical benefits, too. No matter how many studies say so, it's still an idiotic thing to do.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 08:14 PM
6

Indeed, there are some medical benefits to circumcision Not so. There are things everyone knows, and things that are true. Not all those things fit in both categories.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 06:33 PM
1

Agreed. Circumcision doesn't make the penis less sensitive; it affects sensation. By way of analogy, imagine French-kissing without your lips.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:44 PM
1

A holster; a sheath; a garage. Keeps it shiny (NSFW).
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:42 PM
3

You have to sign a consent form. However, irreversible mistakes have been made, so if you're having a son, never let him out of your sight.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:53 AM
3

Good doctor.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:51 AM
2

Better stand guard over that boy anyway.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 12:09 AM
1

It can't be "holistic" because at the end of it, the baby is no longer whole.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:38 PM
3

UTIs among intact men are largely isolated to circumcising cultures (such as the U.S.), where some doctors impress on parents the need to (over)clean under the foreskin. This strips away the natural protections against UTI, especially in infants and little boys. Further, aggressive washing and premature retraction can cause other problems with the foreskin. Methinks the people you've spoken to were not European, South American, nor non-Muslim Asian?
/r/MensRights08/04/12 02:03 AM
2

You will be a good father.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 02:01 AM
2

Do you keep kosher and observe the sabbath?
/r/MensRights08/04/12 02:00 AM
2

Or uncut guys out there who would circumcise their children because of their own experience and drawbacks they have experienced from being uncut. There are no drawbacks to being intact. Did I miss something?
/r/MensRights08/04/12 01:59 AM
1

Here's the "Lost List" of what circumcision takes away. I wish this would stop happening to babies. No male who has a foreskin would ever give it up willingly.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:29 AM
2

Perhaps, if you'd ever known the pleasure of sex with (or as) a fully intact man, you would understand why involuntary circumcision is considered a crime by whose who do know that pleasure.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:35 PM
1

The Lottery is also a recent documentary on how the entrenched interests in the public school system make parents who just want their children educated have to jump through all these hoops with little chance of success. Fits nicely with your theme.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 02:14 PM
1

They cut healthy skin off healthy bodies, without the consent of the persons they're cutting. I think you are either sick or not thinking about your actions, if that's what you as part of your living.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 01:47 AM
3

It's cutting healthy flesh off a healthy body. When has that ever been considered good medicine? On the matter of crying, you may be mistaking silence for shock. If anesthesia is used (and if it is effective), there are still weeks of healing ahead, with the wound subject to urine and feces contamination. That takes place outside the hospital. Then there's a lifetime of bodily hypersensitivity, and a newly documented issue of flexibility. The list goes on. Of course someone can't "miss" what he …
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:19 PM
1

You made the decision. That's your responsibility as a husband. If she can't abide, she's not following her own faith.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:00 PM
1

Fine, then let him research the circumcision prescribed in the Torah/Old Testament, instead of the far more damaging circumcision developed by men much later.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:58 PM
1

Poor guy's not thinking clearly. Maybe he needs more of his penis cut off.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 08:18 PM
3

Not much new to me here, but good to see her spreading better information than most popular media do. On the critical: I would like to have seen more background links, such as the definitive critique of the HIV studies (PDF). And I do wish women writers would lay off the "proper hygiene practices" as related to health. I think this actually scares some Victorian-type parents into circumcising because the thought of instructing their son on penis-cleaning squicks them out. There is no documented …
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:56 PM
1

Male circumcision's purpose since the 2nd century has been to control men, and an unintentional side effect was to make sex less enjoyable.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 09:22 PM
0

Actually, NOCIRC still exists, and you can form your own "center" to do the kind of activism you describe. Intact America is managed from the top-down. NOCIRC can direct you to help with the Medicaid effort, seeking to add to the 18 states that have ruled infant circumcision ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Everywhere that's happened, the circumcision rate plunges as private insurers follow suit.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 09:19 PM
1

If he thinks Christians are supposed to circumcise, he's badly mistaken. I don't even have time to look up all the citations for that. Google Catholics against circumcision.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:32 PM
1

I didn't say she was perfect, or a failure. Just like the rest of us. And she's far from alone in that particular belief.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:56 PM
5

This. I would only note that circumcision appears to be bad for both partners, as intercourse goes. Sensitivity isn't quite the word I would use, though. I'd call it sensation. There's a range of sensations lost with the foreskin's nerve endings, which sense stretch-and-release. It's not just a lower degree of the same sensations.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:49 PM
8

There's also evidence that chlamydia is far more prevalent among circumcised males. The idea that cutting off healthy tissue will help us just befuddles me.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:46 PM
4

How sad that your mother didn't have enough confidence in her ability to help you build your self-confidence. I mean, really, that's terrible parenting. I'm sorry you had to deal with that.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:44 PM
4

Not relevant to your comment, but posted here because the subject is raised: I hate all forms of bullying, including that of the cosmetics/jewelry industry, which works through media to convince girls they aren't attractive unless they spend all their disposable income on the industry's products.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:43 PM
1

I'm sorry for what happened to you. There may be commenters who fit your description; I haven't seen them. All the intactivists I've ever met have nothing but empathy for the victims of circumcision and would never say anything intended to make them feel worse. The most positive force to come out of the circumcision debacle is restoration. These are men working diligently to make the best of what happened to them. They have the courage to undertake a difficult process that may or may not yield r…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:40 PM
2

Then the 1st Century Jews made it worse. You can't blame God for that.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:35 PM
1

My opinion of surgeons is based on personal experience with them. They work in specialty practices, and they don't look good to their managing partner if they don't bill enough hours to compare well with the other surgeons. I'm not a cynic; this is reality. It's also one reason more doctors don't come out against circumcision. It's a moneymaker, and the people they work for would take a dim view of an employee who turns it down. Did you know one of the least-circumcised cohorts in America is ...…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 10:29 PM
4

Why do so many surgeons jump to amputation as their first and last response? In (U.S.) medical school, they were taught one thing to do with the foreskin: cut it off. Also, surgeons don't make a living not doing surgery. It's like the tree feller you ask to look at that big oak next to your house. Of course he thinks it should come down. And why is phimosis in a small percentage of the male population used as an excuse to mutilate the genitals of the majority of males who don't suffer from phimo…
/r/MensRights25/01/12 07:07 PM
2

I also don't see where he addresses the historic fact that the circumcision practiced today is man-made, and is far more damaging than the one prescribed in the Torah/Old Testament. Far too few Jews know this, in my experience debating them.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 08:25 PM
4

Relevant. In short, phimosis can be fixed well short of circumcision. In fact, if it were me, I would rather have a non-retracting foreskin than no foreskin at all.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 02:38 AM
3

What's more, the medical community seems hell-bent on ignoring indications that HIV is being spread in Sub-Saharan Africa more by medical interventions, and not by the commonly supposed heterosexual promiscuity.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 05:41 PM
3

Yeah, there were some well-publicized infant deaths in New York a few years ago due to herpes infections from that practice. Death-by-circumcision may happen more often than we imagine; we just don't know because infant deaths can be attributed to many things, including the general-purpose "infection," which is hard to nail down with all the needles and things they stick into babies these days.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 02:26 AM
1

Sorry for my unclarity. Jesus was circumcised (not the way it's practiced today). But there's no Biblical mandate for Christians to be circumcised. In fact, the Catholic church actively forbade the practice for some time, to make it clear.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 01:49 AM
2

No. I once met someone who said she was a Baptist, and that Baptists believe in circumcision. I went to their web sites (there are several) and found no article of faith supporting that. Christians who say they circumcise "to be like Jesus" are making shit up. St. Paul was abundantly clear on the subject. But there are all sorts of made-up Christian-ish churches whose founders think they know better than what 2,000 years of prayerful scholarship can teach them.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 01:40 AM
1

The Roman Catholic Church, which was the last entity to have a hand in assembling the Bible as it is known today.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 06:12 PM
2

The circumcision practiced in Paul's time was much less destructive than what the Jerusalem authorities prescribed decades later. So, we're not even debating here what God wants. Settle that first, then go on to what God wants for the Jews, vs. what he wants for non-Jews, according to Paul. Then perhaps you should take it up with the church over whether some of the Bible's books are null and void.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:20 PM
1

Blogs have been done, though everybody learns something new from the next one. I respect men who restore their foreskin. It takes a lot of courage -- meaning, hard work that doesn't yield rewards right away, and sometimes not for a long time.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 01:44 AM
2

Circumcised males often develop meatal stenosis, or a narrowing of the urethral opening -- the "hole" at the end of your glans. I'm not sure, but I think it usually occurs in early childhood, when it does occur. Happened to my nephew and a neighbor boy, requiring a "slit" of the meatus to open it back up. Hurts like hell. So, I don't know whether you're past the likely age for this, or whether it's something else. Do you have trouble getting your urine to flow strong? That's a common sign of mea…
/r/MensRights02/01/12 02:08 AM
2

Followers of Christ are not obligated to circumcise anyone. Read Galatians, for one. You may be thinking of the Victorians. They hated sex and agreed with Maimonides that cutting the foreskin off was a good way to minimize sexual activity. (They were wrong.)
/r/MensRights30/12/11 08:35 PM
2

If it comes down to litigation -- and maybe you should get in touch with one of these guys beforehand, to see what they recommend -- the most prominent attorneys on this issue are name Steven Svoboda and David Llewellyn.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 08:23 PM
13

I don't know her, so I can't suggest how to make your argument. I do think she has to "get okay" with his intactness or else she will subtly cause him to want circumcision, and the self-fullfilling prophecy will be complete. God/nature made your son complete. Altering his structure isn't something one does lightly. Is she aware that circumcision is a passing fad in the U.S.? Does she know 3/4 of the world's men are not circumcised -- including all of Europe -- and that their wives are fine with …
/r/MensRights28/12/11 06:36 PM
1

EDIT: This was written after you posted your updates at r/relationships. That's why the doctor aspect is addressed first. Asking a doctor about circumcision is a little like asking a tree feller if that big oak hanging over your house needs to come down. Of course it does. He doesn't make a living turning down work. I don't trust any doctor who believes every male is born defective. Or one who thinks cutting healthy tissue off healthy bodies is good medicine. Most U.S. doctors are taught only on…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 02:18 PM
2

This. That's why, when I talk about circumcision with others, I never volunteer my own (intact) status. I talk about "our generation" and "our parents" instead. I will answer the question if asked, but no one has asked yet.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 04:15 PM
4

This is well-stated. It's extraordinarily difficult to come to grips with the fact that when you were at your most helpless, the people you trusted, and who loved you the most, had you strapped down and permanently separated from the most sensitive part of your body.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 04:14 PM
5

I saved this quote from a fellow Redditor because it comes in handy for questions like this: Whenever I talk to a circumcised man that is vehemently pro-circumcision I can't help but picture a man with his genitals cupped between crossed legs, repeating "I'm OK" over and over. There is something sick beyond words about emasculating a man in such a manner that they are forced by their very nature to boast about their misfortune and even defend their mutilators. edit: formatting
/r/MensRights21/12/11 04:11 PM
1

First, the Langerhans cells do attract HIV. In vivo, and in vitro. But the thing these researchers ignore (or don't know) is that in vivo, Langerhans cells secrete Langerin, which destroys the virus. Next, the famous African studies were planned and carried out by a tight-knit group of epidemiologists who have always favored circumcision as a preventative, despite evidence like this that it hasn't put a dent in HIV prevalence or infection rates. Those studies had serious flaws, big enough to cal…
/r/MensRights20/12/11 11:12 PM
1

That's great if you live in a study. In the real world, circumcision has done nothing to reduce disease.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:24 PM
2

Protip: Learn history before accusing others of ignoring it.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:23 PM
5

No credibility at all. The sponsor, the Gilgal Society, is a self-mutilation cult. They've done a nice job of dressing this up.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 07:23 PM
2

Those that are opposing me obviously don't know very much about microbiology. Those who use microbiology as a rationale for circumcision don't know very much about the real world. So far, the only place where circumcision reduces HIV is in three controlled studies. Nowhere in the real world has it ever worked. So: circumcise away if you live in a controlled study!
/r/MensRights16/12/11 05:43 PM
4

Here's what "dry skin" -- or rather, membrane -- looks like (NSFW). Circumcision forces an internal organ (the glans) to live outside the body. The glans adapts as best it can, but the damage is both obvious (above) and insidious (meatal stenosis). Be aware that circumcision has been touted as a "medical" procedure almost exclusively in the U.S. and only practiced on a majority of infant boys since the 1950s. Every few years there's a new reason for doing it. None has survived the test of time.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 05:42 PM
4

Proven scientifically in three shonky studies, and reflected nowhere in the real world.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 08:54 PM
2

That its writers are uncritical, especially when it comes to claims that reinforce their cultural prejudices.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 08:52 PM
-3

Thanks.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 09:41 PM
9

Quoting another (female) Redditor: Whenever I talk to a circumcised man that is vehemently pro-circumcision I can't help but picture a man with his genitals cupped between crossed legs, repeating "I'm OK" over and over. There is something sick beyond words about emasculating a man in such a manner that they are forced by their very nature to boast about their misfortune and even defend their mutilators.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 08:46 PM
3

Upvoting so you might have an opportunity to learn you're mistaken.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 08:27 PM
1

Why cut healthy parts off a healthy baby?
/r/MensRights05/12/11 01:27 AM
1

In my comment history you'll find a recommendation on what to do about that -- actually, what not to do.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 04:44 PM
1

I would phrase it, "Show me what to do." IMO he will be thrilled for the opportunity to educate you.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 04:42 PM
2

That's new to me. I have heard of meatal stenosis, where the exposed urinary opening tries to grow shut to protect itself, obstructing urine. Happened to my nephew and to a neighbor boy.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 04:36 PM
10

The Jewish scholar Maimonides agrees: 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. Source: The Guide of the Perplexed More from that document here. BTW, this should not be construed as Jew-bashing. The circumcision prescribed in the Old Testament/Torah was far less damaging t…
/r/MensRights19/11/11 06:18 PM
2

It would be smart to note this guy's name for future reference. There's a little coterie of "researchers," Ph.D- and M.D.-level people in influential positions who keep coming up with studies designed to validate circumcision. Not only do they know how to play the media game (release an authoritative-looking, non-peer-reviewed study to gullible journalists who don't ask critical questions), but they are in positions to steer funding toward up-and-coming epidemiologists who parrot their line. It …
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:22 PM
3

Most Americans don't have the religion excuse for circumcision. AFAIK, Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a circumcision article of faith.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 01:45 AM
5

Why does it take a medical degree to understand that cutting healthy tissue off healthy bodies is a bad idea? Seriously. No other medical procedure fits that description. Unless you're talking birth defects, or cosmetic surgery. Sit down with her and watch one of the circumcision videos online (links on the right side). The screams will tear at any mother's heart.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 12:26 PM
5

So, cutting healthy parts off healthy babies is good medicine? Really?
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:14 PM
5

Your kid won't "suffer" if you parent correctly. In the U.S., knowing the circ rate, parents of intact boys would be well-advised to look for casual opportunities for their sons to see each other unclothed. Bathing, playing in a wading pool, cleaning up on the porch after muddy play. Let them see that they're "normal" before some savage tells them otherwise. Picture = 1,000 words. BTW, if you're thinking your child will get through the factory schools without being singled out, you're kidding yo…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:12 PM
8

Yeah, it's been said that anesthesia is for the parents, not the boy.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:08 PM
0

I'm sorry for all the difficulties you and your son have had to deal with. The problem in America isn't you. It's with dollar-happy doctors who take advantage of parents who don't know -- have never seen -- the foreskin. Still other doctors mistake the normal, gradual separation of the foreskin and glans as "phimosis" -- intentionally, or ignorance -- to sell circumcision as "medically necessary." So, no need to feel defensive about what you've had to deal with. It's just that in the U.S., the p…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:08 PM
7

Not clicking. It's bad enough that my neighbor's 4yo son is on the heart transplant list from a systemic infection that set in the day after his circumcision. The damage was largely contained to his heart muscle. He looks fine otherwise. Oh yeah: and he "looks like his father."
/r/MensRights28/08/11 07:03 PM
2

It's half the skin of the penis. Unfolded, it would average 3" x 5". (NSFW)
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:13 AM
5

"Reading the bible"? I guess she skipped the part where St. Paul tells all the non-Jewish Christians they don't need to circumcise.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 07:16 PM
1

There is nothing theoretical about keratinization. See it with your own eyes. NSFW
/r/MensRights09/08/11 07:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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