TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

American response about pierced ears on infants vs circumcision

gregathon_1

April 5, 2021
261 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://imgur.com/a/1ikjgOW
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title American response about pierced ears on infants vs circumcision
Author

gregathon_1

Upvotes 261
Comments 58
Date April 5, 2021 12:08 AM UTC
(5 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/mk88lz/american_response_about_pierced_ears_on_infants/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/american-response-about-pierced-ears-on-infants-vs.831357
https://theredarchive.com/post/831357
Top posts by gregathon_1

Just a little contrast on the male curfew, the same thing was imposed on black and brown people back before the civil rights movement in order to prevent them from committing crime and "harming white people"

1808 upvotes
March 28, 2021
/r/MensRights

Wikipedia's become a joke at this point

521 upvotes
January 29, 2021
/r/MensRights

Is this the tone of voice we need?

282 upvotes
January 23, 2021
/r/MensRights

Meta-analysis of 91 studies finds that women commit higher levels of severe, 'clinical level' domestic assaults than men

260 upvotes
March 15, 2021
/r/MensRights

Sexism Factsheet; comprehensive list of discrimination

141 upvotes
January 30, 2021
/r/MensRights

Debate with Feminist who claims men don't face oppression

140 upvotes
February 17, 2021
/r/MensRights

Sexism Factsheet revised and expanded to include rebuttals to Feminist Talking Points

128 upvotes
March 24, 2021
/r/MensRights

The dating gap: why the odds are stacked against female graduates finding a like-minded man | This is giving me "1 in 4 homeless people are women" energy

128 upvotes
January 30, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]gregathon_1 102 points103 points104 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Glad to know that the American public is more supportive of genital mutilation that removes half of the skin on the penis, threatens bodily functions, is extremely painful to the point of causing PTSD amongst some infants, and is irreversible over a piercing that does not remove any tissue, reversible, doesn't threaten bodily functions, and causes minimal pain because one is done on males and the other done on females.

This is beyond male disposability.

[–]dazmo 28 points29 points30 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's time to appropriate a feminazi slogan: "men are trash"

It turns out they're right. And yes it's a problem.

[–]Pangeasrighthand 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

They can pierce boys ears to It's just ingrained in the culture Alot of people think not circumcising is a health risk

[–]gregathon_1 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Except that the risks and harms outweigh the benefits according to most medical organizations worldwide

[–]Noob_master_slayer 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's hillarious that WHO still recommends it. They say it reduces risk of penile cancer and/or HIV, but by how much? 67% of the world is uncircumcised, but as far I've heard it's not common to have penile cancer and HIV anyways.

It's all about political correctness, believe me. The WHO HAS to recommend circumcision, lest the PC enforcing crybabies call them islamophobic and anti-semitic.

Sometimes I really wonder why organizations are so scared of PC enforcing crybabies? What will they do to a world organization like UN?

[–]Frosty-Gate-8094 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Actually it about 30-40% men in world are circumscribed.. I think 70% us US statistics.

I dont understand why you need to do 'infant circumcision' aka MGM to prevent HIV/penile cancer.

you cant get HIV till you are sexually active, and penile cancer peaks at 60 years of age.

So, both can be prevented by voluntary adult circumcision.
If you men to be circumcised, let them do it when they turn 18.

His body, his choice.

[–]Noob_master_slayer 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

Feminists and a lot of "equality" paraders only apply "Her body, her choice" when it comes to female problems like abortion. But they don't give a damn fuck about infant boys who get cock-snapped, as I like to call it, without their prior consent. Add to that the fact that circumcision has a much greater impact on a man's body than a woman has by say not going to abort.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So, both can be prevented by voluntary adult circumcision.

It doesn't prevent anything, it just very slightly reduces the risk. Not enough to be significant.

Millions of circumcised men have had HIV over the years. It clearly doesn't prevent it, or lower the risk in any significant way.

[–]Frosty-Gate-8094 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It decreases the rate by 1%, so out of 1000 men circumscribed, it will prevent 10 HIV infections.

Same for UTI, it decreases infection rate from 1% to 0.5%.

Its ridiculous that a rountine surgical procedure is recommended for such flimsy benefits...

The complication rates of circumcision vary from 1- 10%. And a 1 in 100k chance of death.

Benefits do not outweigh the risks. Even in medical terms.

What WHO and feminist is doing is not only unscientific, but outright gaslighting.

[–]SporkTornado 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because circumcision only reduces your chances of developing penile cancer from 1/1,000,000 to 1/10,000,000. For every 10 million boys you circumcise, you'd only prevent 9 cases of penile cancer.

[–]Pangeasrighthand 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know that But alot of people dont

[–]disayle32 21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MUH RELIGIONS MUH TRADITIONS

[–]dv42_ 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

When was this survey done? And that's not a very large sample size. Who were the people being surveyed?

The results don't align with what's actually happening. As of kids being born in 2009-2010, the rate has dropped to around 50% nationwide on average, and it's as low as 25% on parts of the west coast. The highest is the midwest, where it's still 70-80%.

It only continues to decline.

[–]EJSGA 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s definitely 2013 or older seeing the IOS 5-6 interface

[–]gregathon_1 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

11,413 is not a large sample size?

[+]dv42_ -14 points-13 points-12 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Only 9,000 did the second one. There are over 300 million people in the US.

This really doesn't seem to be accurate at all, and it doesn't reflect what's actually happening. I wouldn't be surprised if the rate has fallen below 50% now, since it was around 50% in 2010.

[–]69_Watermelon_420 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That is absolutely a good enough sample size. 2k is realistically all you need for any population

[–]dv42_ 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We don't know who was surveyed, or where they came from. This isn't accurate, and doesn't reflect the trends that are happening. Like I said, the rates are 50% or less now.

Not at all a scientific poll. Was this done by a university? Was it peer-reviewed? Or was it some random Internet poll? What if 90% of the results came from a specific region, like the midwest? They'd be more likely to agree with it.

This clearly doesn't reflect the truth, since the data disagrees with this survey.

[–]69_Watermelon_420 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Moving the goalpost. Those are valid points, but you said that was a tiny sample size, which is incorrect.

[–]dv42_ -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a small sample size for a country of over 300 million people, when we don't even know where the people were surveyed or where the survey came from.

I could do a similar survey, but if 90% of the people I surveyed were from California, you'd see very different results.

You can never really get an accurate reading from generalized surveys like that.

[–]gregathon_1 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Dude, that’s more than a large enough sample size. Even surveys with 100 people are considered sufficient sample sizes. I don’t mean to be rude, but please pick up a statistics book or Google any website which will say that 9,000 is more than enough to make conclusions.

[–]dv42_ 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it's not. We don't even know where the people surveyed came from, or who conducted this survey.

What if 90% of the people surveyed were from the midwest? They'd be more likely to answer yes than people from the west coast.

How do you know it was an equal number surveyed from each state?

This isn't accurate. It doesn't reflect the data. The rate has fallen to below 50% now, which disagrees with this survey.

[–]gregathon_1 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It specifies for each state.

Also, pick up a statistics textbook. Just literally go to this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Given the population, 9000 is more than enough.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It specifies for each state.

Yes, but it doesn't say how many people were surveyed from each state. If 90% of the people surveyed were in the midwest, with only a few from the west coast, the results would be heavily skewed.

Similarly, if 90% of the results were from the west coast, I think you'd see the results skewed in the opposite direction.

Here were the rates for kids born in 2009. Source information is at the bottom of the page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg

That's from an actual study, not a random Internet survey of questionable accuracy.

I'm not able to find any data newer than 2009-2010, but I think it's logical that it's even lower today. The trends have only been continuing lower.

[–]Terror-Error -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What if it was an online study?

This isn't accurate. It doesn't reflect the data. The rate has fallen to below 50% now, which disagrees with this survey.

This is the data. If you are aware of another source showing the opposite why don't you post it instead of repeating yourself?

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are aware of another source showing the opposite

Here were the rates for kids born in 2009:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg

I'm not able to find any data newer than 2009-2010, but I think it's logical that it's even lower today. The trends have only been continuing lower.

[–]intactUS_throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not personally doing it and thinking it's outright wrong aren't necessarily the same thing.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The question wasn't whether they thought it was wrong or right.

[–]higgs456 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

As someone who does survey research and knows how to do national samples, this kind of comment on sample size really annoys me. Potentially a sample size of 1,000 could be fine if properly done and analyzed. The big question here is really how the sampling was done and if any techniques were used to make the results generalizable.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A sample size that small for a country of over 300 million people will rarely be accurate.

Tell that to the surveys which had Hillary Clinton with a 90%+ chance of winning in 2016. Every survey was certain she would easily win.

[–]higgs456 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The main problem with those polls was the difference between the quality of the polls done at the state level and the quality done at the national level. The big national ones were well funded and designed, but the state ones often weren't. The state polls are actually more important for figuring out who will win due to the electoral college system, and since there wasn't enough funding to do those with the level of accuracy you'd want you ran into the issues you did. The national polls weren't wrong since Clinton did win the majority of the votes. If you want to get into the weeds on it, check out what the journals Public Opinion Quarterly and Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology were putting out in the aftermath.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The national polls weren't wrong since Clinton did win the majority of the votes.

They were saying she would win the election (electoral college):

https://i.imgur.com/DwRWr9S.png

They wrote an entire article after the election about how they got everything wrong, and admitted their data was completely wrong.

Point being, surveys and polls are often inaccurate, and are far from perfect.

In this case, we know that this survey does not reflect the facts. Circumcision in the US continues to decline over the years. As of 2009, it was around 50% nationwide on average. I'm guessing it's even lower today:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg

[–]higgs456 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It seems you missed my point and then agreed with me while thinking you were arguing against me. Saying they "admitted their data was completely wrong" is a big stretch though. The results were wrong but it's because the data was incomplete, not because it was "wrong." The state-level data used for the predictions for the electoral college was problematic -- that's exactly what I said. Those weren't the national polls I was talking about. I'm aware of how surveys and polls can be inaccurate and what can make them so and how to correct for it where you can -- I've taken multiple courses on it and have done it myself.

My argument here was only on sample size and people saying "oh that's a small sample size" even when it's multiple times larger than what you really need with proper sampling techniques or using a panel and applying statistical adjustments to make the results generalizable. It makes for bad arguments. The real issue with these numbers is we know nothing of the methods used, which sample size is only part of. It could be for instance a convenience sample on the internet, which would make it basically worthless even with an n size of a million.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Saying they "admitted their data was completely wrong" is a big stretch though.

They wrote multiple articles about it, but okay...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/technology/the-data-said-clinton-would-win-why-you-shouldnt-have-believed-it.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/upshot/presidential-forecast-postmortem.html

with proper sampling techniques

Which clearly wasn't used here, since these results disagree with all other available data.

[–]higgs456 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Frankly you proved my point -- you don't seem to know enough about these issues to even argue against me, neither of these points is arguing against me, you're just rephrasing things in a way that feels argumentative. You showed that you don't understand what I said or simply want to argue for the sake of arguing no matter how much of my point you have to ignore for it.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry you feel that way. I'm not the one being argumentative here.

[–]flowerpassion2112 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whelp I have a son and a daughter and I didn’t do either of those things to them! I mean it’s a valid point anyway

[–]invinciblequill 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My issue with this poll is that the question for circumcision doesn't specify male or female.

[–]Drago1214 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not sure if I believe this, Nevada and California have super low cut rates. So this seems very skewed with reality of those areas. But I still agree with what is being said.

[–]Terror-Error 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent. Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20 percent.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent.

From what year? Is that referring to adults? Or kids being born?

It's likely 70-80% of adults in the US. For kids being born now, it's 50% or less in the US.

It has continued to decline over the decades. Multiple studies for kids being born in 2009-2010 found that it was around 50% on average in the US. It's likely even lower today:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg

[+]hbar105 -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

My problem with this is that the figures are a bit misleading. The sample sizes are plenty big to be accurate for the nation as a whole (assuming the survey wasn’t conducted improperly), but there’s no way the statistics are there for individual states. For the left side, the states would have less than 50 respondents on average, so the level of certainty is abysmal. The issue then is that the figures try to show that every state except Vermont is in favor of circumcision and opposed to infant ear piercings, which can’t possibly be supported by the data.

[–]Terror-Error 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent. Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20 percent.

[–]hbar105 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh I don’t doubt it. I guess I should clarify that I think this survey is unfortunately representative of the state of America, and it sucks. I just think the graphic is a bit misleading.

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it's clearly not representative of America, because the actual circumcision rates don't agree with this survey. It's below 50% on average for kids being born now:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg

[–]hbar105 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Unless I’m misinterpreting it, the figure gives percentage of people who think circumcision is okay, not percentage of boys who are circumcised

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And wouldn't you imagine they would be similar? People who don't do it to their kids generally don't think it's okay.

[–]hbar105 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There may be a correlation, but I think there are plenty of people who don’t actively have their child circumcised but still think it would be okay to do so. So they might not be part of the below 50%, but still be in the 80% of the figure since they are okay with circumcision

[–]dv42_ 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just don't think the 80% number is accurate to begin with.

[+]Coochieeater456 -22 points-21 points-20 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How does this effect the persons health in any way, it’s unnecessary skin, I got cut as an infant and don’t really care

[–]Frosty-Gate-8094 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean unnecessary?

Who gets to decide which part of their body is unnecessary?

Is it you? Or the govt? Or the person whose body part it is.

Even if its one drop of blood, it is his blood. And it is only his right to decide, whether its unneccsary or not.

[–]thwip62 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How does this effect the persons health in any way, it’s unnecessary skin, I got cut as an infant and don’t really care

Unnecessary? If you were allowed to keep yours, you wouldn't think so. And if it truly makes no difference, as you say, then, why even bother cutting it off.

[–]gregathon_1 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are plenty of negatives.

  1. Pain and Trauma - Circumcision and chest tube insertion are considered to be the most painful procedures faced by patients in the neonatal intensive care unit. Topical and local anesthesia do not eliminate circumcision pain.

Researchers conducting a study on circumcision found that “every newborn in the placebo group (and thus not receiving anesthesia) exhibited extreme distress during and following circumcision.” Circumcision also interferes with boys’ sleep cycles, feeding, maternal bonding, and has a long-lasting effect on pain sensitivity. Numerous studies confirm that early trauma has a deep and potentially lifelong negative impact, which explains why a significant association was found between the rate of infant circumcision and the prevalence of autism within populations.

  1. Risks - The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) notes that many complications of the procedure are known, including “infections, bleeding, sepsis, necrosis, fibrosis of the skin, urinary tract infections, meningitis, herpes infections, meatitis, meatal stenosis, necrosis, and necrotizing complications, all of which have led to the complete amputation of the penis.”

Other harms include: "[P]ostcircumcision bleeding in patients with coagulation disorders can be significant and sometimes even fatal. Other serious early complications include chordee, iatrogenic hypospadias, glanular necrosis, and glanular amputation. The latter, of course, requires prompt surgical intervention. Late complications include epidermal inclusion cysts, suture sinus tracts, chordee, inadequate skin removal resulting in redundant foreskin, penile adhesions, phimosis, buried penis, urethrocutaneous fistulae, meatitis, and meatal stenosis."

  1. Sexual Harm - Circumcision removes between one-third and one-half of the highly enervated penile covering, common sense suggests otherwise. As European physicians stated in a response to the AAP’s 2012 policy statement and technical report, the foreskin “plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts.” Circumcision prevents these functions, such as the folding and unfolding of the foreskin over the glans in a characteristic “gliding action.” Solinis and Yiannaki (2007) studied couples and reported, “There was a decrease in [a] couple’s sexual life after circumcision indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men or/and their partners, possibly because of complications of surgery and loss of nerve endings.” A 2011 study by Frisch et al. reported:

"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 fulfillment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted."

Dias found in 2013 that erectile dysfunction and orgasm delay substantially increased in circumcised men. A 2007 study showed that the foreskin removed by circumcision is the most sensitive part of the penis. A 2013 study from Belgium of a large cohort shows the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning, finding that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain as compared with the genitally intact population.

  1. Psychological Harm - 38 mostly European medical experts replying to the AAP report note that “circumcision can lead to psychological [and other] problems.” Goldman writes that “preliminary reports appear to be consistent with the symptom pattern of post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]," while Rhinehart strongly states that circumcision can cause PTSD:

"The feelings and behaviors my clients experienced fit precisely unto what Herman (1992) called complex posttraumatic stress reaction (p. 121). They are no different from the experience of rape victims, combat veterans, female circumcision victims, and survivors of natural disasters. She also indicated that the common factor underlying the effects of trauma is the experience of violence and powerlessness (p. 33)—made worse if it is inflicted by other human beings in contrast to a natural disaster. Both are dramatically present in the procedure of neonatal circumcision."

And there's much, much more.

It's an extremely harmful practice.

[–]Coochieeater456 -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn’t the whole point of doing it as a newborn to avoid trauma later on, and if it’s done well no harm comes from the procedure at all

[–]dv42_ 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not medically necessary. No medical organization in the world recommends it. The AAP in the US says "the benefits are not great enough to recommend it universally".

It should be left up for the kid to decide for himself when he's old enough.

Not your body, not your choice. Pretty simple.

[–]gregathon_1 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except it doesn’t remove harm as I explained. Even doing unnecessary surgeries constitute harm.

[–]SnusMats 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its actually very sensitive and pleasurable skin. Do you still have the frenulum on the underside of the glans?

The entire tip of the foreskin is of the same sensitivity/pleasure.

[+]TAPriceCTR -24 points-23 points-22 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a poor comparison. These are a matter of preference, I care to know the proportion that think it's acceptable.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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