Circumcision Rage Compilation - intactivist assaulted three times

9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them??

10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit:

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc

12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death):

http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract

18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence

http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf

19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full

20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits

http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm

23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

25: Circumcision has negligible benefit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693

26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302

28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682

30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination.

http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract

[–]adamdavid85 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]momandpopheir 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, anytime this comes up, the only people who seem to get triggered, are the ones on the "No circumcision" side.

You'd be surprised. "Pro" people protest almost as vehemently as us online, even when there's no reason to be angry.

I mean, just look at all of the responses to me. If this isn't the textbook definition of "triggered", then I don't know what is.

Never mind anyone else. Do I come off as "triggered"?

I mean, if you're unhappy with your cock, I get it....but why put that on anyone else? Blame your parents, and don't circumcise your own kid....but I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind.

Say what you will about these street protesters, a lot of people are actually thinking about something that they would have previously just done because of them. People are actually bothering to research infant circumcision and many don't like what they see. The internet is full of mothers, and even a few fathers who wish they'd never had their sons cut. I also see a lot of people who say that the information they've picked up has made them reconsider. I'd say people's minds are being changed. Not fast enough for my liking, but, then, I've always lacked patience.

[–]JazzerWithCheese 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]D-Dubb -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

That’s not a fact. That’s your opinion.

As a circumcised male, I’m 100% thankful it was done, did it to my 3 boys, and would again in a heartbeat.

There are lots of articles from ACTUAL MEDICAL AND SCIENCE JOURNALS stating that the pros outweigh the cons. All of the literature I find stating otherwise is from non-impartial sources with a “no circumcision” agenda.

I’m by no means trying to talk you, or anyone else, into (or out of) anything. It’s just such a divisive issue that’s pits men against other men, instead of us being united for Men’s Rights. I also don’t really see anyone’s mind being changed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/male-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says/

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2788411/

[–]jmg83 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If my sons don't share my opinion, I'd tell them they can choose to not circumcise their own kids, if that's what they want.

That's great. It won't help them personally, but someone has to break the chain.

I totally support that guys can feel this way! I just think as a "Men's Right's" issue, it's so divisive AMONG MEN, that there are a lot more issues that can bring men together, that can further a Men's rights movement.

It's a divisive subject for several reasons. Mostly because some guys feel that to even question circumcision means questioning themselves, and that frightens them. If the only men who were circumcised were those who needed to be, or chose to be, then it would be a completely different matter. Regardless of what people might think of tattoos, for instance, no one would argue that adults shouldn't be able to do what they want to themselves. While we're on the subject of tattoos, look at how many people regret them, and get them removed. If people can come to regret body modifications that they chose themselves as an of-age, legal adult, then imagine how infuriating it is for men who had an unnecessary, permanent body modification forced upon them. I'd say this is very much a men's rights issue. Talking about it is a good thing because a lot of people say that if they'd done the research in the first place, there's no way their sons would be circumcised. A lack of information is one reason why this has prevailed for so long.

[–]D-Dubb 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

A thoughtful response. My Ex-wife and I took a month of discussion and research before deciding to do it to our 3.

What made you guys arrive at the conclusion you came to?

Once again, very similar to abortion, in my opinion. 2 people can look at the exact same information, and make 2 different decisions. And the 2 will rarely agree with the opposite perspective. Which is why we haven't made much progress since the 70's.

Well, I don't have much of an opinion on abortion. While I don't see it as a quick fix that should be taken lightly, as a man, I don't think I have the right to tell women they shouldn't be able to do to their bodies. I see infant circumcision as a different matter entirely. It's funny, though because in the past, pro-infant circumcision people have often tried to use abortion as a defence, basically "If you're against infant circumcision, you should be anti-abortion" as if the two were directly linked.

Personally, I could never have kids with a woman who is for infant circumcision. Some men will cave to the mother's demands. Not me. There aren't many matters I'd put my foot down on, but this is one of them.

[–]nugymmer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You can get all the stats on the common talking points on the Canadian Paediatrics Societies paper. It has all the stats (table 1). The stats imo are pretty terrible to medically justify circumcision. http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

Here's a few excerpts:

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys ... would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.”

“The number needed to treat to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.”

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

“Decreased penile cancer risk: NNT = 900 – 322,000”. That means between 900 and 322,000 circumcisions need to be performed to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JazzerWithCheese 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dankmemesteelbeams 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oklawolf 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You couldn’t pay me to put my foreskin back, even if it was quick and easy.

Sure — everything is just dandy 😂

Functions of the Foreskin

A list sourced from medical publications.

Referenced links here

What does the male foreskin do? Foreskin...

Protects the infant from contaminants, infection, and meatal stenosis.

The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis in infancy[1], providing protection. The preputial sphincter at the tip specifically serves as a simple barrier that keeps out environmental contamination. It is not designed to be pulled back in infancy or childhood. Meatal stenosis (narrowing or closing of the urethral hole) occurs in approximately 10% of circumcised boys[2] and sometimes requires painful corrective surgery.

Protects the adult glans from chafing and loss of feeling.

When the mucosa of the glans are exposed to chafing, the glans protects itself by keratinizing[3] (similar to a callous). Foreskin keeps the glans internal, as it is supposed to be. The more the glans keratinizes, the less it can feel.[4]

Stores and releases natural lubricants.

With natural lubricant,[5] men with foreskin generally do not need lotion or lubricant for sexual activity. Women benefit from the lower risk of friction and dryness that a man's foreskin provides. It also serves to seal in the female sexual partner’s lubrication, preventing it from losing its effectiveness.[6]

Feels good for its owner with specialized pleasure nerves.

The foreskin is densely innervated with multiple types of nerves.[7] These nerves respond to stretch, fine touch detail, temperature, and more. Foreskin feels really good.

Delivers pleasure to the male's partner.

The presence of the male foreskin is inherently pleasurable in intercourse. In particular, it stimulates the female clitoris in certain sexual positions.

Rolls/glides rather than rubs. This helps prevent friction and dryness, eases penetration, and provides pleasure.

The mechanics of sexual activity are changed dramatically with circumcision, from rolling to rubbing. Circumcised males "tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes," but intact males tend "to thrust more gently, to have shorter strokes, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more."[6] Also, the sliding/gliding motion of the foreskin over the glans and corona is deeply pleasurable for the male and makes initial insertion of the penis easier and more comfortable for both partners.

Keeps the head of the penis warm, moist, and comfortable.

Like the eyeball, inside of the cheek, and vagina, the glans is designed to be a protected internal organ.[3]

Provides sensory feedback, giving the man greater control of the sexual experience.

The structures of the foreskin provide full, natural levels of neurological feedback, which allow robust control over erection, arousal, and orgasm.

Facilitates erection and ejaculation when wanted.

The foreskin contains the most pleasurable parts of the penis. This complete sensation, elimination of friction and pain, and other functions reduce the risk of erectile and ejaculatory problems.[8]

Helps prevent erection and ejaculation when unwanted.

The foreskin protects the glans from being aroused at inappropriate times, reducing involuntary erections. Feedback helps prevent premature ejaculation.

Maximizes penile length and thickness.

It's common sense: if you cut part of something off, you make it smaller. This has been observed by professional journals, including one which found that the penises of circumcised males were an average of almost 1 centimeter shorter.[9]

Feels details as well as the fingertips can.

The specialized nerves don't just feel good - they feel well.[7]

Increases sexual arousal.

Apocrine glands in the foreskin[10] may release pheromones, signal chemicals that help encourage sexual arousal in the man's partner. The foreskin also prevents discoloration of the red/purple/pink head of the penis, preserving the sexual signal conveyed by this natural coloration.

Defends against harmful germs.

Specialized cells provide defense against unhealthy microbes.[10] As long as the man washes occasionally with water, not soap, the microbial balance of the area remains healthy and infections are prevented.

Prevents painful erections.

An intact man is safe from "not enough skin" erection problems.[11] The foreskin is a part of a whole penile skin system – it expands and moves along with erection. In addition, the frenar band massages the glans during sliding/gliding, regulating blood flow and preventing the erection from becoming "too hard," which can happen with some men.

Prevents pain after orgasm.

Without correct protection and mechanical function, some men experience a burning or other pain after ejaculation.[12]

The foreskin has various other sexual, cosmetic, neurological, and other functions. For example, it provides protection from cold, burns, and trauma, and it contains a rich network of blood vessels to support good penile function.

The foreskin is supposed to be there, for many reasons.

[–]goodfoobar 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Scientific American article references African studies on HIV. In these studies they tested adult men for HIV, circumcised half of them, then tested them for HIV a year later. The circumcised men that could not have sex for 6-8 weeks and were around medical clinics with condom information were less likely to have HIV one year later.

The AAP article is a long one and the only benefit they mention is STI and cite the African HIV studies. As for other STI's American has some of the highest HIV, STI, and circumcision rates in the industrialized world meaning that if circumcision provides any STI benefit it is tiny.

The NCBI article immediately references the African studies on HIV and circumcision and does not list any another benefit.

The three articles you have linked state the only benefit as reduced HIV risk and reference the same debunked African HIV studies. Please tell me you have more then this.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh dear — the AAP! LOL. You really have let yourself be fooled by these people who mutilate infant boys as a sacrifice to their Sky Gods!:

It looks like you have also referenced the AAP — the American Academy of Pediatrics — "Task Force on Circumcision 'Technical Report'". This was a totally sham report, and as far away from a "systematic review" and a "meta-analysis" as you could get.

According to the AAP — they are not pro-circumcision. Their wording was very careful — they don't recommend it, but they do justify access to it. And later in the report they state: “...health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision.”

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756

And yet Dr. Andrew L. Freedman, one of the senior members of the "task force" on circumcision for the AAP has now clearly stated:

"To many, especially in the lay press, this was interpreted as moving the needle from a neutral stance, as the 1999 guidelines were viewed, to being pro circumcision." [ie: the lay press were wrong].

Freedman has now come out and admitted, that the AAP "report" was nothing more than a sap to "multiculturalism" and that they took numerous non-medical issues into consideration, whilst at the same time stating that were doing the opposite: "although we claim authority in the medical realm, we have no standing to judge on these other elements." And yet — that's exactly what they did!

So the AAP has now admitted, that their "medical" report was really about just allowing religious people to continue their sexual abuse and mutilation of infant boys.

AAP Link here

Link to full text here - scroll down

The American Academy of Pediatrics is a trade organisation, and exists for the promotion of its members - paediatric doctors. It is not, and never will be, a patient advocacy group.

The AAP members make millions of dollars from circumcision infant baby boys, and millions more from selling the amputated foreskins for medical research and cosmetics:

http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

And even more money fixing "botched" circumcisions — which can be 20% of their income! See below.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

Many other sane pediatric association from around the world has declared the AAP's stance to be against all sane, rational analysis.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

The British Medical Journal also published an extensive critique:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2013/03/19/journal-of-medical-ethics-special-issue-on-circumcision/?q=w_jme_blog_sidetab

Also the Journal of Medical Ethics:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/18/medethics-2013-101346.abstract

The Danish Society of Family Physicians has even declared male "circumcision" to be genital mutilation. Other countries in Europe will soon follow:

“The National Board of Health has sent Guidelines Regarding Circumcision of Boys into hearing. DSAM (Danish Society of Family Physicians) has debated the issue and agreed that circumcision may only be performed when medical indication is present. Circumcision in the absence of a medical indication is mutilation.”

Plus, the circumcision policy committee of the APP had many members with a conflict of interest, not least because of their religious belief in the requirement by their God to have their sons' penises mutilated as a sign of their devotion and love.

These people are terrified that the general public is going to get wise to this child-abuse and ban it.

Dr. Andrew Freedman was one of the members of the committee, and was asked:

"Do you have a son and, if so, did you have him circumcised?"

"Yes, I do. I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder."

http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/new-york-minute/fleshing-out-change-circumcision

So he didn't have 100 million years of human evolution and Charles Darwin looking over his shoulder then? Every male mammal in the animal kingdom is born with a foreskin, so it evolved for reasons.

Not only that, Dr. Andrew Freedman makes 20% of his income from treating circumcisions that have gone wrong! (But note that every circumcision is a botch job). So he makes $500 a pop for circumcising boys, and then more $$$$ for fixing the problems!

"As a practicing pediatric urologist, 20% of the patients I will see today are here because of something related to their circumcision."

http://www.amednews.com/article/20120903/health/309039955/4/

Here is the AAP policy statement. Can you please point me to the section where there task force members state their "conflicts of interest"? (Hint: you won't find it because it doesn't exist):

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989.full.pdf+html

Note that as three of the task force members were women; and the rest men all born before 1980, there is a very high degree of certainty that none of them possess a male foreskin.

In addition, at least four of them subscribe to a set of theological beliefs that require them to mutilate the genitals of their infant sons. And one of whom (as detailed previously) did so on his kitchen table. Not only is this in violation of the AAP’s code of bioethics prohibiting physicians from conducting surgery on family members (let alone in non-sterile environments), it also provides additional evidence of a pro-circumcision bias among the hand-picked task force members.

These people will mutilate your penis just because they think it pleases their sky-god. Forget about "medical benefits".

And recently, Steven Svoboda, a Harvard educated lawyer who runs "Attorneys for the rights of the child", debated two of the AAPs "Taskforce on Circumcision" members: Michael Brady, M.D. and Douglas Diekema, M.D.:

"Asked if people present could explain the functions of the foreskin Brady said, “I don't think anybody knows the functions of the foreskin,” then reiterated, in nearly identical words, “Nobody knows the functions of the foreskin.” I noted that there was not a word about the functions of the foreskin in the 2012 AAP report, and asked, shouldn't we know something about the functions of the healthy body part that is being removed?"

Tellingly, the AAP pamphlet "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis", used to contain this information:

"The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision, this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis, and meatal stenosis. Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life".

But this was deleted in the 1996 reprint, and despite numerous letters to the editors, no explanation was ever given as to why it was removed. Of course the reason is obvious: they want to deny that the male foreskin has any function at all, so they can continue to mutilate infant boys.

http://www.circumcision.org/pamphlet.htm

The foreskin is not "just a little bit of skin." The foreskin is a complex, double-layered fold of flesh, laden in thousands of nerves and blood vessels. Keep in mind that as a child grows into a man, his foreskin grows too; it isn't so little by the time the child is an adult. And adult foreskin can be from 12 to 15 square inches in size.

The foreskin is not a birth defect.

Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft.

Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder.

Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation, and it needs to stop NOW.

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]D-Dubb1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

The well tested....insult people till they agree with you. Taking a page from the Republican playbook, huh?

Why don’t you spend more time fantasizing about baby dicks, you moronic pervert.

I hope every child you have is forcibly circumcised, and you’re forced to watch from Prison, you Pedophile.

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]D-Dubb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Circumcision Rage Compilation - intactivist assaulted three times
Author	JohnKimble111
Upvotes	46
Comments	50
Date	November 8, 2017 5:28 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7bjade/circumcision_rage_compilation_intactivist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-rage-compilation-intactivist.911579 https://theredarchive.com/post/911579

Comments