TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Breaking the Glasses: Female Circumcision: The benefits outweigh the risks - You Have to Read it to Get it and Yes It's About Men

rodvanmechelen

March 23, 2015
21 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2015/01/female-circumcision-benefits-outweigh.html#.VQ964eH-vq4
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Breaking the Glasses: Female Circumcision: The benefits outweigh the risks - You Have to Read it to Get it and Yes It's About Men
Author

rodvanmechelen

Upvotes 21
Comments 38
Date March 23, 2015 2:32 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2zyynx/breaking_the_glasses_female_circumcision_the/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/breaking-the-glasses-female-circumcision-the.985131
https://theredarchive.com/post/985131
Top posts by rodvanmechelen

Should the Women who Made Knowingly False Statement in the Kavanaugh Hearing Be Criminally Prosecuted?

1463 upvotes
November 7, 2018
/r/MensRights

Student's career ruined because he reminded rape victim of attacker

1165 upvotes
March 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Today's young women think they're victims... Do stop whining, sisters. We've WON the sex war

510 upvotes
July 30, 2013
/r/MensRights

Colleges Worried That Men Accused of Sexual Assault Might Receive Due Process

388 upvotes
January 19, 2014
/r/MensRights

Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys' falling grades, study finds | LifeSiteNews.com

369 upvotes
January 18, 2013
/r/MensRights

Lawsuit: Yahoo's Marissa Mayer Led 'Purge' of Male Employees

366 upvotes
October 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Men Are Good: A Response to Misandry in the Workplace

266 upvotes
January 30, 2018
/r/MensRights

'Maybe Mommy didn't mean to hurt me,' 5-year-old told doctor of possible abuse months before he was killed

263 upvotes
April 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]23-3-2015 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It really breaks my heart that my own government outlawed "female" genital mutilation. Why insert the word "female"? Why did they choose to keep male genital mutilation legal?

Half the skin was sliced off my penis when I was an infant: by my parents, by "medical professionals," and by my government.

What community do I have? The first thing my family and government did to me was violent abuse. And now there are racists and sexists everywhere blaming me for the world's problems because of my "white male privilege."

My family stands for nothing. My country stands for nothing. And no one did anything to stop them from mutilating me. I have no community.

[–]timoppenheimer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this, it gives me some relief to see I'm not alone.

[–]rodvanmechelen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm 62 and it was not until several months ago that I finally confronted my father about the consequences of having me circumcised when I was a baby. One of the health problems that circumcision can cause is urethral strictures. In most cases, and especially if caught early enough, these can be corrected with surgery. But mine were not diagnosed until I was in my fifties. From the age of 6 I have had kidney infections, bladder infections and, starting about 25 years ago, chronic prostatitis, and that's all in addition to the loss of the natural functions of the foreskin. So I am really opposed to circumcision and I sympathize with you and every man who has suffered the indignity of this abuse.

[–]theskepticalidealist 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The most important part of this is that female circumcision really was shown to reduce aids infection, conducted by people that really didn't want to find out that was true.

That was always their number 1 card to defend male circumcision, despite the fact that the standards of medical care there are abysmal and cause a lot of mutilation and partial/complete removal of the penis. And that we would never suggest circumcision in any other developed country to stop the spread of HIV, and because now the ignorant population believes they are protected and don't need to wear condoms.

Now it turns out female circumcision has the same reduction of risk of infection from HIV. So now what circumcision advocates? What do you have left apart from feels?

[–]DavidByron2 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Our bad. But you get the gist; the CDC is recommending surgical removal of part of an infant's genitals as a preventative measure against an otherwise preventable sexually transmitted disease.

A disease which male infants can't possibly get. It's as ridiculous as saying which should slice open little girls because one day they might need a cesarean section to give birth.

[–]Grumpchkin 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lets remove the Appendix on all babies because they might get Appendicitis.

[–]23-3-2015 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's remove the hands of doctors who might mutilate children.

[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tonsils, too.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hear ingrowing toenail can be nasty -- easy way to fix that.

[–]rodvanmechelen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ted Pong, whose articles opposing circumcision I published in The Backlash! several years ago, pointed out that there is an even more medically compelling reason for performing preventative mastectomies on baby girls, as the rate of breast cancer is much, much higher than all of the diseases combined that are prevented by male infant circumcision. Of course, only a sadistic thug would be in favor of removing baby girls breasts, so what does that say about our modern medical establishment and their fixation on hacking off baby boys' foreskins?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Stop me if I'm wrong, but the study they're making fun of was in Africa, where:

  • the uncircumcised men basically fucked like rabbits, as people in sub-Saharan Africa do

  • the circumcised men were Muslim, who have a strong religious tradition of monogamy

TL:DR correlation is not causation, assholes

[–]SweetiePieJonas 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

This isn't really true. While North and East Africa are predominantly Muslim, the area of Africa where male genital mutilation is common (80%+ of all adult men) also includes all of West Africa and most of Central Africa, both of which are predominantly Christian. Muslim-majority North and East Africa are also far less populous than the rest of the continent (mostly due to the Sahara being generally uninhabitable).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

The point being, you're looking at monogamous people vs people rutting like bonobos.

[–]SweetiePieJonas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for that? Birth rates are equally high in heavily Catholic Central/West Africa as they are in the heavily Muslim Sahel and East Africa. You have also referred to Muslims as "monogamous people" twice now, despite Islam rather famously allowing polygamy.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

As opposed to "fuck anything that moves"

[–]SweetiePieJonas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

No source, then?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2011/11/22/promiscuity-is-murdering-us

[–]SweetiePieJonas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

  • This is an opinion article, not a study.
  • It's about South Africa, where neither circumcision nor Islam are especially common (EDIT for Africa, anyway)
  • It doesn't say anything about the sexual promiscuity of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men, which is the claim I'm asking you to provide a source for.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Oh Jesus, here we go, the "find me the absolute correct source" troll.

Just disregard what I say, call me a liar, and bugger off.

[–]SweetiePieJonas 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

No, any source. Do you know how sources work? When you make a claim, providing something that doesn't even mention what you are claiming doesn't count as a source.

Either come up with a source to back up your claims, or admit that you were just spitballing.

EDIT Also, don't open your unsourced hypothesizing with "stop me if I'm wrong" if you're going to act like a little bitch when someone does.

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Go. Away.

[–]SweetiePieJonas0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

  1. Claim that uncircumcised men are more promiscuous than circumcised men
  2. Get asked for a source; provide an opinion article that doesn't even mention circumcision at all, much less make a comparison
  3. Piss and moan when this source is deemed inadequate for not addressing your claim at all; call the person asking you to actually back up your claims a troll

Boo. 0/10

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, asshole, I'm not going through the process of digging up sources just to have you shit all over them. I've been through this before.

It's "source?"

Then "credible source?"

Then "credible source in a peer-reviewed academic journal?"

Then "credible source in a peer-reviewed academic journal put out by an independent multi-racial body"

and so forth.

People in Africa FUCK LIKE MINKS. This is KNOWN. I gave you a source for that, their sexual mores are WELL KNOWN.

That's a GOOD WAY TO GET AIDS.

Being MONOGAMOUS is a GOOD WAY TO NOT GET AIDS

If you want that spelled out in big fancy words with tons of Ph.D's you go find it, because I'm fucked if I'm going to source that shit just to have you ask for further proof and/or concern troll about "so you can't back your sources, you can't provide simple proof, you can't, I'm just asking, I'm just asking for you to provide simple proof of your assertions...."

Elsewhere on Reddit someone going "conservatards who hate science are hate global warming hurr durr" and have tons of upvotes.

Just admit you're trolling.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The idea that people in Africa have lots of unprotected sex is not in contention. The idea that promiscuity leads to the transmission of AIDS is not in contention. What is in contention is your claim that the sexual mores of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men, and not the circumcision itself, account for the difference in HIV rates shown in the CDC study.

You haven't even begun to back this claim up. While a peer-reviewed study with good methodology would obviously be the best kind of source, literally any source to back up what you're saying would be preferable to what you have provided. If the opinion article you provided even mentioned circumcision we would be having a different conversation.

[–]mdvolk0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"back this claim up" wow dude. like he fucking needs to. its a known fact their sexual mores are nonexistent.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I see you're just as thick as he is.

[–][deleted]-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The idea that people in Africa have lots of unprotected sex is not in contention.

Well, fuck me with a pickle fork. So we agree.

What is in contention is your claim that the sexual mores of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men, and not the circumcision itself, account for the difference in HIV rates shown in the CDC study.

Well, let's see. Bang a bunch of chicks (you admit the regulars do that) it's a good chance of getting AIDS (you admit that's the case).

Are you suggesting that somehow Muslims in that region of the world are spitroasting bush prostitutes with sand in their vaginas to do "dry sex" on the regular as well? It would go against Islamic sexual mores. Is that the contention?

If you think I can find something that somehow goes against the CDC study with this, I can't, by definition - because the CDC study was a case of a solution looking for a problem. Doctors LOVE to cut up little boys cause they get $250 for a little snip, and hippie moms these days leaving their kids intact is getting a whole bunch of money fly away from greedy doctors.

So they're looking to try to get circing to be the default again, and this time they're trying the "hygiene/don't get AIDS" route.

Obviously there's not going to be any triple blind, double beam study that examines the populations the CDC studied looking for an alternate explanation. The only one looking at it was the CDC with the express purpose of SELLING CIRCUMCISION.

What I'm using is something called, oh, I don't know - common sense.

Bang tons of chicks? Wow, tons of AIDS

Stay monogamous? Wow, much less AIDS.

School children can work that one out.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still aren't backing up your claim at all, which relies on assumptions like "most circumcised men in the CDC study are Muslim" and "Muslims aren't promiscuous." You haven't even shown that non-Muslim Africans are particularly promiscuous; every study I've ever seen shows that the countries with the highest promiscuity (i.e. average number of sexual partners) are the first-world industrialized nations.

I asked you politely for something to back this up, and in response you've thrown a lot of irrelevant garbage at me, and called me an asshole troll. Fuck yourself.

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still aren't backing up your claim at all, which relies on assumptions like "most circumcised men in the CDC study are Muslim" and "Muslims aren't promiscuous."

"With a published study from a source I think is credible". Fuck yourself.

Which of these is it - are you refuting:

  • Circumcised men in that area are Muslim: given that besides the Xhosa, most people who are circumcized belong to an Abrahamic religion that stresses monogamy, most probably Islam

or are you asserting:

  • For some ludicrous reason, Muslim people in that area are just as promiscuous and prone to adultery and promiscuity as the rest.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Christ, man. This is very simple. You claimed that uncircumcised men are more promiscuous than circumcised men. I have said many times in very plain language that this is what I'm asking you to provide evidence for. You haven't even tried to do that as far as I can see. At best, you are throwing out weak circumstantial/speculative arguments about separate issues that betray your deep ignorance of Africa.

Circumcised men in that area are Muslim: given that besides the Xhosa, most people who are circumcized belong to an Abrahamic religion that stresses monogamy, most probably Islam

Since you're talking about the Xhosa, you are once again focusing specifically on South Africa (4.7% of Africa's population) and not Africa as a whole. Even within South Africa, there are more than ten times more Xhosa than Muslims, so your argument doesn't even begin to hold water. I will leave aside for a moment that Christianity is also an Abrahamic religion that stresses monogamy, and that the vast majority of circumcised men south of the Sahel aren't Muslim.

For some ludicrous reason, Muslim people in that area are just as promiscuous and prone to adultery and promiscuity as the rest.

You have not shown that non-Muslims are particularly prone to promiscuity. The best you have done is made a couple of borderline-racist references like "rutting like bonobos" and "raping spitroasting bush prostitutes with sand their vaginas."

I don't even know why I'm continuing to reply to you, but here it is again, just so we are clear on what I have been asking you to do:

Provide some evidence, any evidence, for the claim that uncircumcised men are more promiscuous than circumcised men.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A survey of published journal articles containing data on HIV prevalence and religious affiliation showed that six of seven such studies indicated a negative relationship between HIV prevalence and being Muslim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14990375

Now why do you suppose that is... hmmmm.......

Maybe something to do with much stricter religious codes?

A strong majority of Muslims in nearly all countries surveyed condemn pre- and extra-marital sex, including three-quarters or more in 29 of the 36 countries where the question was asked. This view is nearly universal in Thailand (99%), Jordan (96%), Lebanon (96%) and Egypt (95%).24

But you know, there's no causal link between going off with tons of prostitutes and being promiscuous (Op-Ed, earlier) and NOT going off because of strong religious convictions about sex outside of marriage - and HIV, even though study after study has shown much less AIDS in Muslim communities.

Why are you so interested in debunking this? Are you a professional circumciser or something? This is basic, basic shit.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still aren't talking about uncircumcised vs. circumcised men, which once again is the point in contention. I am done with you.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They circumcise people in Islam, dude. It's part of their religion.

If you want a citation, check the fucking Koran.

[–]SweetiePieJonas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They circumcise people in non-Muslim societies all across Africa, dude. You're really ignorant if you think that in Africa circumcised = Muslim, especially if you're talking about subsaharan Africa where Islam is much, much less common.

And now for real this time, I am done with your dumb ass.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You do realize I'm not saying being Muslim = no HIV and not being Muslim = HIV, right?

I'm saying that what they did was look at a correlation: circumcized men tending to have many, many members of their population from a religion with strong moral stances against promiscuity, and uncircumcized men, who tended to come from populations that fuck like rabbits, and presume the issue in question is the presence or absence of a foreskin.

Shades of the "a frog has its ears in its legs, because we trained it to jump to the sound of a click, and when we cut its legs off, it didn't jump any more."

Of course there are circumcized people in Africa who aren't Muslim, but the bulk of the population they think were saved by the procedure ALSO HAPPENED TO TEND TO BE FROM A POPULATION THAT DIDN'T FUCK AROUND

Why aren't you getting this, idiot?

[–]mdvolk -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

shut the fuck up. he gave a source. its common sense you idiot.

[–]SweetiePieJonas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Read his "source." It doesn't even mention circumcision. No one is asking him for a source linking promiscuity to AIDS, I am asking for a source linking promiscuity to uncircumcised men. He has not provided one.

[–]mdvolk -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you are right through the whole thread with this idiot troll. i hope you get upvoted cause him challenging your sources made me crack up.

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