UnpopularOpinion is one of the worst moderated subs on Reddit.
They have bots to delete posts if it contains keywords, regardless of context. They delete posts as "frequently posted", which nobody can know if the posts are immediately deleted.
If you have a network glitch and it double posts, you're automatically banned for "reposting"
I don't even think they have a human moderator, just shitty bots
OPs post was removed because of the keyword "circumcision" as "too common", regardless of how original the actual context is.
Give it a try. Post anything with the word "ketchup", it'll be deleted
Yeah, the frequently deleted thing is a complete sham. First of all, how frequent is too frequent? It's entirely up to the mods' discretion, rather than a clearly defined rule which the mods enforce. But moving past that, once something has been determined to be posted too frequently by the mod team, they're just going to lock that topic away in their head as "delete on sight". If those posts are getting deleted, then by definition, that topic isn't posted too frequently, because it literally never gets discussed. If 10/10 posts get deleted, you have 0 posts. That isn't a frequent posting of the topic. It's 0 posts on the topic.
It's so clearly the mods giving themselves a way to delete any post they don't like, while claiming it breaks such-and-such rule. Like the AmITheAsshole mods with their "civility" rule. Thread after thread with people tearing any given man a new one, calling him all sorts of hateful shit. But then there's one post where OP's wife says something like, "How could you think I would be a bitch like that", resulting in people in the comments saying, "Well, she was being a bitch, so you are NTA." And the mods swoop in to nuke the thread from orbit, claiming that people aren't being civil. Call OP an asshole all you want. Call any man any horrible things you want. But use a woman's own words regarding herself? TOO FAR.
UnpopularOpinion mods just decide they don't want this or that topic to get any light (frequently men's issues), and so they deleted every single post about them, claiming they are posted too frequently, despite it being literally impossible to ever get one through, proving that claim incorrect.
Reddit mods are given too much power, they are the law makers, judges, police, and prosecutor at the same time, which is ripe for corruption.
Add in the kind of people who would be incentiviced to be moderators (losers who want to have power and influence over others because they are insecure) and you'll have a recipe for disaster.
Honestly there could be much more democratic ways of moderation
Yep. It would be super easy for them to be corrupt even if they had oversight. Half the subreddits on this site have at least one rule which is so vaguely written that it allows the mods to essentially remove/ban anything they want, and claim that it's because it broke that vague rule. For example, the civility rule on AITA. People can be extremely harsh to the OP of one thread, but then in a separate thread, someone can say something much less bad about a person who isn't even the OP (and therefore is very unlikely to ever see the thing said about them), and the mods will call that uncivil and remove it. So even if the mods had to answer to someone above them, they'd still likely be super corrupt.
But they don't even have to pretend. One time, I was banned from a subreddit with no reason given, only a link to the offending comment. I knew the chances of getting it overturned were approximately 0%, but I was bored and had nothing better to do, so I figured I'd farm a "mods suck" story. I message to ask why I was banned, and I was told that I had brigaded. This was not true at all, so I asked for an explanation. They said I had commented in a cross-post thread, and then subsequently commented in the original thread on their subreddit, therefore proving I brigaded.
The issue is...I had been the one to cross-post the thing to begin with. So the mod was objectively wrong. I had found a thread on their subreddit, commented in it, and then cross-posted it to another subreddit to say, "You guys see this shit?" That is not brigading. It's cross-posting. I point that out to the mod, with the evidence plainly available to see if the mod hadn't been blinded by rage. I am 100% confident I was actually banned because the mod disagreed with what I had said in my comment, and made up the excuse of brigading to justify it. But now that I had proven I had not brigaded, I told the mod they are obligated to unban me. And they just responded, "Oh I am, am I? I'm pretty sure I'm not."
And there it is. Even if mods had to be ready to justify every ban to their superiors, they could easily cover their ass by citing a vague rule and using some mental gymnastics. But it's baffling to me that they don't even have to do that. A mod can ban you, and even if the thing they banned you for is objectively and provably false, they're in a position where they can just say, "lmao suck it, I can do what I want, fuck off."
The whole system for moderation is complete garbage.
Yep. It would be super easy for them to be corrupt even if they had oversight. Half the subreddits on this site have at least one rule which is so vaguely written that it allows the mods to essentially remove/ban anything they want, and claim that it's because it broke that vague rule. For example, the civility rule on AITA. People can be extremely harsh to the OP of one thread, but then in a separate thread, someone can say something much less bad about a person who isn't even the OP (and therefore is very unlikely to ever see the thing said about them), and the mods will call that uncivil and remove it. So even if the mods had to answer to someone above them, they'd still likely be super corrupt.
YES YES THIS ^
Worst of it is when the mods make rules that say "moderator has final say" I mean, WTF? That's like if lawmakers made a law to give police the ability to do anything they want.
I literally got my account suspended thanks to moderators from AITA, there was a post where op had a friend who claimed infertility is worse than death, I posed a question "if its worse than death, why don't infertile people kill themselves?"
And then got permanently banned, argued with the moderator, and he fucking REPORTED ME FALSELY FOR FIVE TIMES FOR BAN EVASION.
I was just a kid then, and it really hurt me, I thought bans where only handed out to the worst of the worst, you only take away someones right to speech when that someone is really really extremely unpeasent to everyone.
I know that not all mods are bad, but I agree that the moderation system needs reform, voted laws, voted moderators, posts not being able to be removed after certain amount of upvotes etc etc.. more democracy in general.
Also, I want to start a subbreddit to reform moderation possibly, i have like a mini manifesto, you wanna join and help?
And the cancer argument everybody likes right now is even stupider. If it's okay to cut off a foreskin to prevent a one in a million chance of penile cancer, then surely we should preemptively give every woman a double mastectomy to prevent their one in ten chance of breast cancer, right?
I also don’t get the religion part of it. Supposedly, God made us in his image, right? So we are born with foreskin. Why would we fucking cut it off? Doesn’t that mean you are altering his image? His creation? Whatever.
Exactly. I believe the earliest use of it that's confirmed was actually to terrify prisoners of war and their respective tribes. As you say, it defeats the idea of perfect creation in religious terms
Listen I generally agree that circumcision shouldn't be an automatic thing, but let's not pretend nature doesn't do wacky shit with evolution. We have parts of our body that don't do anything or are pointless due to technology, it's not that unreasonable that people might have considered the foreskin one of those.
Foreskin is not a vestigial part tho. It gives more pleasure during sexual activities and also protects the partner with less friction during sexual acts. It’s like cutting off clit of a woman during her childhood.
Right, and I didn't say it is vestigial. I just said that it's not super unreasonable someone may think it is, particularly in places where circumcision is common.
As someone who was circumcised myself, I find it hard to believe it can be compared to cutting off a clitoris however, so someone who hasn't even heard of any of this before could be forgiven for assuming it's vestigial.
I was mainly just taking issue with the argument that evolution wouldn't have given it to us if it created a minor issue like cleaning it.
Edit: phrasing of the argument was wrong initially.
It is almost same as cutting of a clit, it is scientifically proven to have lots of nerve ending in end of foreskin which increases pleasure during sexual activity so does a clit. Removing off both is a horrible body mutilation without consent when done on babies.
The bulk of the clitoral structure is internal and cannot be cut off. When a women has even a severe circumcision, it is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be, as any circumcised women will tell you it increases sexual pleasure.
I hate the mods on r/unpopularopinion. Anything they disagree with, they wait to see if it gets a good response and they remove it for being a repost. That post isn’t a repost ffs. Bunch of cunts.
Notice the disgusting comments made by women(feminists) about mutilating baby boys, these sick fucks feel they have power over babies. notice how quickly feminists brought FGM and basically said girls are the only victims, boys should shut the fuck up.
I love seeing the people complaining about 'reddits weird obsessions with circumcision'. Everyone would be up in arms about FGM, only cuz is MGM they do not care and downplay it.
The underlying premise is that "men are dirty" and unable to clean themselves. This is a gender bias that too many women have been enculturated to tacitly believe.
Yes, and because condoms reduce sensation further, circumsised men are less likely to use condoms, making them more likely to spread STDs, despite the fact that circumsised men have a lower risk of transmitting STDs when not using condoms.
I said thank you. Isn't that the validation you're looking for? But if inventing reasons to feebly insult strangers is more your speed, looks like you've achieved it. Kudos!
Kudos to you cruising the internet for corrections. Btw i said thank you first, we both know you are the one seeking validation. Try becoming an actual editor, it might pay better, and you wont have to feel insulted for no reason, because there will actually be a reason for you to act like that.
Ha, that's funny. Projecting your motives onto others, then berating them for saying something you disagree with, for some unfathomable reason. Offering an insight isn't trying to be an editor. You aren't good at discerning motive, but that doesn't stop you, does it? Good job! Mission accomplished.
You aren’t good at discerning when to offer insight, taking a joke, dealing with someone saying something you don’t like or letting things go. You are good at making needless corrections and making yourself out to be a victim.
Didn't realize your permission was needed, or that you are the arbiter of these things. Whew! Lucky for me, and all of us, that you are out there. Keep it up!
My permission is not needed for you to use the reddit app or its features. However you REPLIED TO ME. I cant believe that it would be so unfathomable to you that you might get a response. I cant believe that you would get sooooo butthurt over a couple jokes.
Either way im done with you now. Seriously, you remind me of my ex girlfriends.
You said something nonsensical and tried to play it off as a joke. You used sarcasm and so I replied in kind. Your 'joke' made no sense and you tried psychoanalyzing my one off response. You tried attributing nonsensical motives. Then you moved on to low-key homophobia. I'm going to play with the adults now. Run off and play with your little friends. You'll be happier that way.
The argument is based on a false premise to start with.
If you were filthy to the point of having problems being circumcised wouldn't help you. The myth that it requires special attention is probably responsible for most of the foreskin development problems when parents try to retract the foreskin of children to "wash" before it is developed causing problems like phimosis (imagine doing that to your daughter).
The dumb thing is the US is only country I know that has routine group showering at school and they are the circumcised ones.
Of course this post was one of the ones getting removed amongst the humongous flood of posts addressing the same thing over and over again. Definitely not telling at all.
I can understand if we were talking about times in the past where people didn't have the luxury of being able to shower everyday. I never really understood why this is an argument in modern times where we do have that luxury now.
I never said everywhere has a decent plumbing system. All i said is that the "its cleaner" argument isnt a good one in a place and time with good plumbing.
Well i got one and am extremely happy as were all my ex gfs and now wife. Its perma clean and smells well 24/7. It probably saved my life when i had two times sex with an HIV+ person. All in all super happy beccause looks good, feels good and smells good. Got compliments and was asked about it without mentioning it. It was no religious reason but medical one.
I am not advocating for doing that stuff with people who cant decide for themselfs but i wouldnt want it changed for myself. Just to share an different viewpoint.
Edit: just wanted to add: i have kids / a son and wouldnt do that to him without a very good reason.
It really doesn't prevent anything. It is incredibly stupid to think that a lack of foreskin will keep you safe over a condom.
The frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ([1], [2], [3]). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%/2.5%). Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors including, but not limited to:
The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early
The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles)
Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV
Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases
There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, there are statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
On the basis of three seriously flawed sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into female-to-male (FTM) sexual transmission of HIV, in 2007 WHO/UNAIDS recommended circumcision (MC) of millions of African men as an HIV preventive measure, despite the trials being compromised by irrational motivated reasoning, inadequate equipoise, selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects, and failure to investigate non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV+ than in those where more circumcised men were HIV+? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many men lost to follow-up? Why did men in the intervention group receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? The absolute reduction in HIV transmission associated with MC was only 1.3 % (without even adjusting for known sources of error bias). Relative reduction was reported as 60 %, but after correction for lead-time bias alone averaged 49 %. In a related Ugandan RCT into male-to-female (MTF) transmission, there was a 61 % relative increase (6 % absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men, some of whom were not informed that their male partners were HIV+ (also some of the men were not informed by the researchers that they were HIV+). It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman (Number Needed to Harm) was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. As the trial was stopped early for “futility,” the increase in HIV infections was not statistically significant, although clinically significant. In the Kenyan trial, MC was associated with at least four new incident infections. Since MC diverts resources from known preventive measures and increases risk-taking behaviors, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains dubious.
This investigation compared circumcised and intact (uncircumcised) men attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics on condom perceptions and frequencies of use. Men (N = 316) were recruited from public clinics in two US states. Circumcision status was self-reported through the aid of diagrams. Intact men were less likely to report unprotected vaginal sex (P < 0.001), infrequent condom use (P = 0.02) or lack of confidence to use condoms (P = 0.049). The bivariate association between circumcision status and unprotected sex was moderated by age (P < 0.001), recent STD acquisition (P < 0.001) and by confidence level for condom use (P < 0.001). The bivariate association between circumcision status and infrequent condom use was also moderated by age (P = 0.002), recent STI acquisition (P = 0.02) and confidence level (P = 0.01). Multivariate findings supported the conclusion that intact men may use condoms more frequently and that confidence predicts use, suggesting that intervention programmes should focus on building men's confidence to use condoms, especially for circumcised men.
The recent report by Wayant and colleagues on the fragility index did not include the African randomized clinical trials on HIV and adult male circumcision. Analysis of these trials may provide insight into the interaction between p values and fragility in overpowered studies. The three trials shared nearly identical methodologies, the same sources of differential bias (lead-time bias, attrition bias, selection bias, and confirmation bias), and nearly identical results. All three trials were powered to demonstrate an absolute risk reduction of 1%. All three were discontinued prematurely following interim analyses that satisfied pre-established early termination criteria.
The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors (mostly behavioral) play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, proper sexual education, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs.
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
The chance to get STDs is much lower in most cases since your tip is very dry and the skin does not let stuff through that much. https://sti.bmj.com/content/76/6/474
Interesting read, tho in the case of HIV smaller chance doesnt cut it imo. I certainly wont rush to get circumcised.
Btw if you dont mind if I ask: Was that person aware of the HIV infection or not? Cuz some laws were made that seem to stop requesting informing the partner about HIV status which I feel is very dangerous law.
Well i wouldnt do it again, too. Who likes sharp things near that area? Just wanted to give an different viewpoint since many of the circumsised people do not suffer from it and there actual benefits. What doesnt make it a good thing but i think you know what i mean. I wouldnt change it back now if i could and my son won't get it.
To your question: i'm from germany so idk how the laws are in the states but here its mandatory for hiv+ folks to tell their partners. She didn't tell me and the person after me because she thought it can't be true and would go away by ignoring it. We weren't even informed by her but the clinic requested us to visit and let us test. I didnt go to the police but the other guy went and took a lawyer. I was young, broke af and happy to get away healthy that time. Charges were dropped because she made big eyes and told em she were intimidated by our physical appearences as men and couldnt tell us then. That was in ~2008 i guess. They changed the law for the better some years ago.
Well it was a very interesting POV but I am not entitely sure being cut is what avoided HIV. Anyway its never a thing to gamble with and I probably would never risk it.
The law part was a good change but that charges were dropped bc le big anime women eyes makes me furious. That bitch could have killed you, maybe she infected many men. Whoever thought not requiring to disclose HIV should be law was an evil person. Glad to see most countries are not idiots on this issue. I am not American either and our laws are probably the same as yours but in the US some laws made headlines due to their stupidity about the issue.
nonsense. american men (who are nearly all circumcised) have two to three times more STDs than european men (who almost always have their whole penis). most STDs are not getting in through your skin in the first place. there's an opening to the inside of your body at the tip of your penis, and circumcision actually removes the covering from it.
yup, i looked at the STD rates in america and compared them to the STD rates in spain, france, germany, sweden, and italy. the circumcised men have two to three times more STDs.
You are absolutelly full of BS. Sorry to tell you that. Its just wrong. It is cleaner and does smell less since it isn't even wet. Thats a fact and known to many folks here. Its not wet. How hard is that to understand? Things that are wet and warm smell a lot faster then things that are dry af. I never ever saw something like smegma or like anything. It looks the same always and it smells the same always. Only sweating changes something. About STDs there were a lot of studies indicating otherwise. 'You watched at numbers and made your own little study' wow. Did you look at why americans are more prone to STDs? Can you prove thats the reason? I bet not. Go read and educate yourself before you continue your crusade here.
no, those aren't facts. real world statistics prove that they're wrong. in actual life, circumcised men have much higher rates of STDs than men with whole penises do.
Please link the research paper that comes to that conclusion, too. I mean if its so easy to see i bet medical researchers, actual professionals, must have seen that correlation long ago.
Glad this worked for you, but how did this make your gfs and wife happy? They wouldn't like how it looked otherwise? This seems like shallow behavior that shouldn't be encouraged.
And now it's perma clean? You still wash it, right? Otherwise, eww.
the part of a penis you have left needs to be washed just as often as a whole penis would. it is not "perma-clean", and is not any less prone to smelling. it's foolish to believe cutting parts of your penis off will protect you from STDs. and yeah, i'm sure those surgical scars look great.
You didnt read actually anything about that right? Its cleaner and needs a lot more time to get a smell then normal since it isnt anything wet there. Thats logic. About STDs are a lot of studies. Google em and ream em and then come back.
In my country circumcision is done for medical reasons or for muslim diaspora. The rest of parents don't do it. Or you can do it as adult if you want it. But little boys? Either nobody tells or ordinary ppl around (we live in area where some 80% of ppl are families with small children) just don't do it
For this being a men’s rights sub I really don’t see a lot of support for circumcised men on here. A lot of men prefer the pen is they have and saying one or the other is superior is perpetuating insecurity in all men’s minds in my opinion
I'm all for those who feel comfortable with being circumcised.. and in fact I have not seen anything along the lines of attacking men for being circumcised.. I have however seen the opposite where those who ARE circumcised attack the very idea that circumcision is wrong..
At the end of the day many of us just want to make it Illegal to perform what is essentially cosmetic surgery on children who can not consent to it.. Why is that so fucking wrong to so many people?
GTFO with your obsession with mutilating baby boys you sick fuck. Circumcision should be a choice made by men when they are 18+, they can then decide if its something they wish to do. Forcing it on babies is inhumane and anyone who defends sick practices like this is probably either a religious freak, paedophile or a misandrist feminist.
I don't think it's something that needs to wait until 18, just until they're old enough to understand the procedure and make the choice themselves.
As someone who is circumcised, I prefer it personally. But I don't think it should be done immediately at birth, even if just because waiting lowers the chances of it going wrong. Mostly because consent though.
Let me put it this way: I'm circumcised. I'm just fine with my penis. That doesn't mean everyone is. Just like with trans rights we need to look at the individual and then not blanket statement about what is "right" or "wrong." We need to instead give autonomy and choice to the individual.
that is exactly what im scared of we have no chance if we become like them and become an echo chamber that way we will be exactly what they say we are and exactly what they are assholes
I said I would leave of this sub would become an echo chamber
I care about the sub but I can't stay if I know we have become the same as r/feminism, an echo chamber, which we so tried to avoid, we tried to be better, if it fails then we are the hypocrites,
Also no one wants to participate in a community full of toxic bumbasses ^
At least from what ive noticed its not the idea of circumcision that they have an issue with, its the idea of doing it as an infant so they have no choice in the matter.
I mean as far as i hate forced circumcision we dont hear circumcised dudes talk about their extreme dick cheese because they havent washed it in 20 years.
When I was born my mom didn’t want me circumcised. As i grew older i had trouble pulling the skin off the if head my penis.(I think my head was bigger the skin hold around it) My mom took me to a doctor and told us i needed to be circumcised because i probably had a massive build up of knob cheese since ive never been able to expose my head. Two days later after surgery was the first time i ever saw the head of my penis at 8 years old.
Only fathers should be able to make that decision for their sons, and ONLY if they were circumcized themselves. End of story.
Men of the Himba tribes get their front teeth knocked out of their jaws when they turn 15. This is called human tribalism. People have done weird shit like that for thousands of years to increase survival rates by bonding with their tribes.
We don't live in a world where everyone needs to be the same and act the same. That is called totalitarian tyranny. Why the fk would anyone want that?
maybe because those traditions predate religion by thousands of years and helped men bond together and thrive above the opposite gender for thousands of years?
If you're not thinking about that, you need to ask yourself why not. Don't get stuck at the 'consent' aspect of it. Nothing that happens to us as babies has been consented to, but we all live and die and live the circumstances regardless. The oldest, most prolific and generally content men i've ever known were circumcized, which tells me it is not harmful.
not just a bunch. like 90% of em. In at least a third of the world, the majority of men have been circumcized for well over a thousand years, hundreds of successive generations.
At the end of the day, it's whatever works bro. You don't need to understand something for it to work. You know what else works? Getting married young and having a dozen kids. Doesn't have to make sense.
There are many millions of men who lived and died trying to make sense out of their lives, trying to be good boys, and wasting it in vain, removing themselves from the gene pool, leaving NOTHING behind for the sake of 'progress'
They've got upsides and downsides, like everything else in life. But you can't ignore the survival benefits.Female circumcision has a different intent than male circumcision. I've dated a woman like that. It changes their personality and takes away the ability to orgasm through clitoral stimulation. very interesting. It tends to render women less sexually adventurous, although it does not make women more faithful in the big picture.Either way, no, I don't personally support it.
Male circumcision has no negative effects. My loads are huge and feel voluptuous, my friend.
When it's time to finish, it looks and feels like an entire mechanized roman legion charging out of the fog. it's grandiose. It's glamorous. It's Voluptuous.
That's a lot more words than required to say, "My name is ElegantDecline and I'm a massive hypocrite."
Your previous argument saying we should embrace customs such as circumcision goes only one way even though their is NO benefit to circumcision for either gender.
It's funny that you list the exact things that have happened to me because of my botched circumcision yet you think you can speak for all men about very personal issues.
I have a profound loss of sensation during sex and am very self conscious about the aesthetics of what's left of my dick.
But you don't care at all. You only give a shit about one gender and it's not your own.
Also it's very meta of you to have that name considering that as our conversation goes on your intellect has sharply declined...not very elegantly though sadly.
Here's a little advice for next time if you want people to take what you say seriously.
Don't appeal to tradition in an attempt to make something seem acceptable. Masses of people have believed in ignorant things since mankind first discovered fire.
In a hundred years all circumcision will be seen as barbaric and needless.
You are the one who is thinking in black and white, not me. male mutilation good, female mutilation bad is your whole argument and it's not based in reality.
black and white thinking. And you're getting pissy and gaslighting because I refuse to follow that same line of thinking. It's called an opinion. we all have one, bruh.
This is not a male/female issue. It never was. This is taking away focus from actual discrimination that hurts and shortens mens lives.
Again, i'm sorry your dick got all mangled, but it's unusual. like people who died from the vaccine. My opinion remains unchanged. Hang in there.. hopefully few more years they'll be able to fix you good as new. In fact, I know they will. medical tech is advancing faster every day.
They'll fix your tool and throw another 3" on top of that 😁
Male circumcision has no negative effects. My loads are huge and feel voluptuous, my friend.
Press X to doubt.
It substantially decreases penial sensation which raises the question when did you get circumstanced? The implication by your argument is you got circumstanced in adulthood, as you were able compare before and after
And the basis of your argument seems to be a fallacy.
Edit:
Well, according to the Bible, God made circumcision a key part of his covenant with Abraham. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17&version=NIV Obviously I don't expect you to believe that story, but it does seem consistent with following the old Testament.
Circumcision only causes no harm if you assume the foreskin and its functions have no value to its owner, which you simply cannot do on behalf of all men. I could also justify routine double mastectomies, which would eliminate breast cancer and save half a million lives every year, if I disregard the value that breasts have to women.
Regarding putting FGM in another category...again, that's cultural bias talking.
Type IV FGM, which is performed in Indonesia and is the most common form of FGM worldwide, removes nothing from the girl's body. A study found that 92% of Indonesian mothers support the practice, and only 2% say it isn't beneficial. In Egypt, where the forms of FGM are more severe (Type I), 82% of women support continuing the practice, with a majority responding that it doesn't lessen sexual pleasure. In Africa, an anti-FGM task force claims that in cultures that cut women:
"Research by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced." - "Many women who have had genital surgeries view the procedure as a cosmetic beautification, moral enhancement, or dignifying improvement of the appearance of the human body. This is true of both male and female genital modifications in African cultures."
"The widely publicized and sensationalized reproductive health and medical complications associated with female genital surgeries in Africa are infrequent events and represent the exception rather than the rule."
"Female genital surgeries in Africa are viewed by many insiders as aesthetic enhancements of the body and are not judged to be 'mutilations.'"
"Female genital surgery in Africa is typically controlled and managed by women. Similarly, male genital surgery is usually controlled and managed by men. Although both men and women play roles in perpetuating and supporting the genital modification customs of their cultures, female genital surgery should not be blamed on men or on patriarchy."
"Demographic and health survey data reveal that when compared with men, an equal or higher proportion of women favor the continuation of female genital surgeries."
The truth is, in cultures that cut girls, FGM is justified in a myriad of ways, often by the women in those cultures. There are also some health benefits:
We could justify FGM fairly easily. All we have to do is disregard a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and ignore the value a woman might place on these body parts.
Likewise, for male circumcision, the intents are probably not what you think:
30 CE
“One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.
“Two is that it is a symbol of a man’s knowing himself, and discarding that terrible disease, the vain opinion of the soul; for some men, like good statuaries, have boasted that they can make the most beautiful animal, man; and then being puffed up with arrogance, have deified themselves, hiding from sight the true cause of the creation of all things namely, God.”
“It is very much better and more farsighted of us to prescribe circumcision for infants, for perhaps one who is full-grown would hesitate through fear to carry out this ordinance of his own free will."
“With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. ... How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: ‘‘It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.’’ In my opinion, this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”
"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
Athol A. W. Johnson. On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.
1871
"I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit."
M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Theraputic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol.14 (1871): pp.368-374.
1894
"From our experiences in such cases, we feel fully warranted in suggesting the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race as an effective remedy in preventing the predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that race."
Peter Remondino, On Negro Rapes and their Social Problems, The National Popular Review, vol. 4 (1894): p. 3.
1898*
"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision... He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures."
N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp.249-251.
1935
"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'"
R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision, British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.
We can wash our hands as many times a day as we want, how many times a day do you get the chance to peel back your foreskin and wash it because you think it could be harvesting microbes and bacteria.
I see that people are triggered by this. I made the statement that the analogy is flawed, and wether you think vaginas and buttholes are dirty or not, the analogy is still flawed
I wasn’t aware it’s socially acceptable to whip a peeper out in a public restroom. I mean common guys.
I didn’t even say uncircumcised dicks are dirtier than circumcised ones. I pointed out that it is clearly a very different scenario than cutting off your fingernails for cleanliness. Perhaps medical science got it wrong for generations, and circumcision is inconsequential or even just harmful. But many men I have met don’t seem to think they were mutilated at birth, and are fine and actually prefer the fact that they were circumcised at birth.
It is insulting to force the narrative of victimhood on someone who never asked for it and has never felt that way; Just as insulting as it is to call someone dirty when they do in fact clean themselves. I’ll admit I felt ashamed it took a female to point that out on a thread on a men’s rights sub and felt vindictive on behalf of my circumcised friends.
I was harsh by saying trigger words such as “bacteria and microbes” and by detailing the act of pulling back foreskin. That was the wrong way to make my point and has drawn out some insecurity which is the opposite point of this sub.
I wish all you men out there, with all types of wieners, the best of luck in all of your sexual and/or non sexually related endeavors.
[–]McFeely_Smackup 123 points124 points125 points (3 children) | Copy Link
UnpopularOpinion is one of the worst moderated subs on Reddit.
They have bots to delete posts if it contains keywords, regardless of context. They delete posts as "frequently posted", which nobody can know if the posts are immediately deleted.
If you have a network glitch and it double posts, you're automatically banned for "reposting"
I don't even think they have a human moderator, just shitty bots
OPs post was removed because of the keyword "circumcision" as "too common", regardless of how original the actual context is.
Give it a try. Post anything with the word "ketchup", it'll be deleted
[–]BornAgainSpecial 31 points32 points33 points (1 child) | Copy Link
How about "male genital mutilation", "circ'd", "foreskin"?
[–]McFeely_Smackup 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
No idea, try it
[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, the frequently deleted thing is a complete sham. First of all, how frequent is too frequent? It's entirely up to the mods' discretion, rather than a clearly defined rule which the mods enforce. But moving past that, once something has been determined to be posted too frequently by the mod team, they're just going to lock that topic away in their head as "delete on sight". If those posts are getting deleted, then by definition, that topic isn't posted too frequently, because it literally never gets discussed. If 10/10 posts get deleted, you have 0 posts. That isn't a frequent posting of the topic. It's 0 posts on the topic.
It's so clearly the mods giving themselves a way to delete any post they don't like, while claiming it breaks such-and-such rule. Like the AmITheAsshole mods with their "civility" rule. Thread after thread with people tearing any given man a new one, calling him all sorts of hateful shit. But then there's one post where OP's wife says something like, "How could you think I would be a bitch like that", resulting in people in the comments saying, "Well, she was being a bitch, so you are NTA." And the mods swoop in to nuke the thread from orbit, claiming that people aren't being civil. Call OP an asshole all you want. Call any man any horrible things you want. But use a woman's own words regarding herself? TOO FAR.
UnpopularOpinion mods just decide they don't want this or that topic to get any light (frequently men's issues), and so they deleted every single post about them, claiming they are posted too frequently, despite it being literally impossible to ever get one through, proving that claim incorrect.
[–]DavidByron2 47 points48 points49 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I had my outer ears cut off so I don't have to clean behind them. Doesn't everyone do that?
[–]ridderrobby 24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Van Gogh would be proud
[–]Professional-Run-471 53 points54 points55 points (9 children) | Copy Link
Of course it was removed. Reddit is a joke
[–]themolestedsliver 26 points27 points28 points (8 children) | Copy Link
Nah let's not generalize. The mods on unpopular opinion are a joke.
[–]Synikey 40 points41 points42 points (7 children) | Copy Link
Reddit mods are a joke.
[–]ReverseShell1337 22 points23 points24 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Reddit mods are given too much power, they are the law makers, judges, police, and prosecutor at the same time, which is ripe for corruption.
Add in the kind of people who would be incentiviced to be moderators (losers who want to have power and influence over others because they are insecure) and you'll have a recipe for disaster.
Honestly there could be much more democratic ways of moderation
[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Yep. It would be super easy for them to be corrupt even if they had oversight. Half the subreddits on this site have at least one rule which is so vaguely written that it allows the mods to essentially remove/ban anything they want, and claim that it's because it broke that vague rule. For example, the civility rule on AITA. People can be extremely harsh to the OP of one thread, but then in a separate thread, someone can say something much less bad about a person who isn't even the OP (and therefore is very unlikely to ever see the thing said about them), and the mods will call that uncivil and remove it. So even if the mods had to answer to someone above them, they'd still likely be super corrupt.
But they don't even have to pretend. One time, I was banned from a subreddit with no reason given, only a link to the offending comment. I knew the chances of getting it overturned were approximately 0%, but I was bored and had nothing better to do, so I figured I'd farm a "mods suck" story. I message to ask why I was banned, and I was told that I had brigaded. This was not true at all, so I asked for an explanation. They said I had commented in a cross-post thread, and then subsequently commented in the original thread on their subreddit, therefore proving I brigaded.
The issue is...I had been the one to cross-post the thing to begin with. So the mod was objectively wrong. I had found a thread on their subreddit, commented in it, and then cross-posted it to another subreddit to say, "You guys see this shit?" That is not brigading. It's cross-posting. I point that out to the mod, with the evidence plainly available to see if the mod hadn't been blinded by rage. I am 100% confident I was actually banned because the mod disagreed with what I had said in my comment, and made up the excuse of brigading to justify it. But now that I had proven I had not brigaded, I told the mod they are obligated to unban me. And they just responded, "Oh I am, am I? I'm pretty sure I'm not."
And there it is. Even if mods had to be ready to justify every ban to their superiors, they could easily cover their ass by citing a vague rule and using some mental gymnastics. But it's baffling to me that they don't even have to do that. A mod can ban you, and even if the thing they banned you for is objectively and provably false, they're in a position where they can just say, "lmao suck it, I can do what I want, fuck off."
The whole system for moderation is complete garbage.
[–]ReverseShell1337 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
YES YES THIS ^
Worst of it is when the mods make rules that say "moderator has final say" I mean, WTF? That's like if lawmakers made a law to give police the ability to do anything they want.
I literally got my account suspended thanks to moderators from AITA, there was a post where op had a friend who claimed infertility is worse than death, I posed a question "if its worse than death, why don't infertile people kill themselves?"
And then got permanently banned, argued with the moderator, and he fucking REPORTED ME FALSELY FOR FIVE TIMES FOR BAN EVASION.
I was just a kid then, and it really hurt me, I thought bans where only handed out to the worst of the worst, you only take away someones right to speech when that someone is really really extremely unpeasent to everyone.
I know that not all mods are bad, but I agree that the moderation system needs reform, voted laws, voted moderators, posts not being able to be removed after certain amount of upvotes etc etc.. more democracy in general.
Also, I want to start a subbreddit to reform moderation possibly, i have like a mini manifesto, you wanna join and help?
[–]TheGodOFnoOne 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
r/AllModsAreGay
[–]sub_doesnt_exist_bot 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
The subreddit r/AllModsAregGay does not exist. Maybe there's a typo? If not, consider creating it.
🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖
feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback. github
[–]ModsGetPegged 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Mods on all websites are a joke imo. Comes with the job.
[–]boxsterguy 28 points29 points30 points (1 child) | Copy Link
And the cancer argument everybody likes right now is even stupider. If it's okay to cut off a foreskin to prevent a one in a million chance of penile cancer, then surely we should preemptively give every woman a double mastectomy to prevent their one in ten chance of breast cancer, right?
[–]ByronsLastStand 46 points47 points48 points (20 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. If it was a major issue, nature wouldn't have had us evolve to have one. Cleaning the penis is a 5 second job.
[–]crimdelacrim 23 points24 points25 points (9 children) | Copy Link
I also don’t get the religion part of it. Supposedly, God made us in his image, right? So we are born with foreskin. Why would we fucking cut it off? Doesn’t that mean you are altering his image? His creation? Whatever.
[–]ByronsLastStand 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. I believe the earliest use of it that's confirmed was actually to terrify prisoners of war and their respective tribes. As you say, it defeats the idea of perfect creation in religious terms
[–]dejour 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Well, according to the Bible, God made circumcision a key part of his covenant with Abraham.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17&version=NIV
Obviously I don't expect you to believe that story, but it does seem consistent with following the old Testament.
[–]crimdelacrim 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Ah I had forgotten about this. I wonder why this covenant wasn’t established with Cane and Abel. Presumably them, Noah, etc wouldn’t have been either.
[–]DarthEquus 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
This is an excellent read on the history of circumcision. The first chapter goes over this question well:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Marked_in_Your_Flesh.html?id=SF6fbjNe0yYC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1
Tl;dr, priests in the 6th century bce established it as a sacrifice basically as hazing to the fathers
[–]dejour -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
Trial and error?
[+]pyrolover6666 -11 points-10 points-9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Adam was made in God's image and I think when God gave adam a penis he didn't give him a foreskin.
[–]crimdelacrim 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Is this legend? I’m not familiar with the verse describing Adam’s penis. I don’t mean to be rude or poke fun. Genuinely I’m not aware of it.
[+]pyrolover6666 -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't know the verse I just heard the story before. I'm not religious so no harm no faul.
[–]RusticSurge10 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I heard about cleaning your PP but I didn't know what they were talking about..
this comment made me go "ohhh"
[–]Soda_BoBomb 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
Listen I generally agree that circumcision shouldn't be an automatic thing, but let's not pretend nature doesn't do wacky shit with evolution. We have parts of our body that don't do anything or are pointless due to technology, it's not that unreasonable that people might have considered the foreskin one of those.
[–]No-Access-1249 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Foreskin is not a vestigial part tho. It gives more pleasure during sexual activities and also protects the partner with less friction during sexual acts. It’s like cutting off clit of a woman during her childhood.
[–]Soda_BoBomb -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
Right, and I didn't say it is vestigial. I just said that it's not super unreasonable someone may think it is, particularly in places where circumcision is common.
As someone who was circumcised myself, I find it hard to believe it can be compared to cutting off a clitoris however, so someone who hasn't even heard of any of this before could be forgiven for assuming it's vestigial.
I was mainly just taking issue with the argument that evolution wouldn't have given it to us if it created a minor issue like cleaning it.
Edit: phrasing of the argument was wrong initially.
[–]No-Access-1249 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It is almost same as cutting of a clit, it is scientifically proven to have lots of nerve ending in end of foreskin which increases pleasure during sexual activity so does a clit. Removing off both is a horrible body mutilation without consent when done on babies.
[–]BornAgainSpecial 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The bulk of the clitoral structure is internal and cannot be cut off. When a women has even a severe circumcision, it is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be, as any circumcised women will tell you it increases sexual pleasure.
[+]needletothebar0 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
people in cultures that practice female circumcision believe the clitoris is vestigial. should we forgive them for it?
[–]Soda_BoBomb 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Is uh...that what I said?
[–]jacksleepshere 28 points29 points30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I hate the mods on r/unpopularopinion. Anything they disagree with, they wait to see if it gets a good response and they remove it for being a repost. That post isn’t a repost ffs. Bunch of cunts.
[–]Atilla942 16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Notice the disgusting comments made by women(feminists) about mutilating baby boys, these sick fucks feel they have power over babies. notice how quickly feminists brought FGM and basically said girls are the only victims, boys should shut the fuck up.
[–]TacticusThrowaway 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Even though FGM is literally orders of magnitude less common, and much more illegal.
[–]Greg_W_Allan 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Funny thing...there aren't aisles full of deodorizers for male genitals in our supermarkets.
[–]0ofs 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I love seeing the people complaining about 'reddits weird obsessions with circumcision'. Everyone would be up in arms about FGM, only cuz is MGM they do not care and downplay it.
[–]flip69 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The underlying premise is that "men are dirty" and unable to clean themselves.
This is a gender bias that too many women have been enculturated to tacitly believe.
[–]ThePinkPepper 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Yup and i heard that sex is a bit less pleasurable for the man with a circumsized penis, is this true?
[+]needletothebar3 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
sex is 80% less pleasurable for the man with a circumcised penis.
[–]Rad_Knight 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
That much?! Well TIL
[–]Rad_Knight 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, and because condoms reduce sensation further, circumsised men are less likely to use condoms, making them more likely to spread STDs, despite the fact that circumsised men have a lower risk of transmitting STDs when not using condoms.
[–]TheGodOFnoOne 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I had to cut my head to stop getting brain freeze
[–]btickles 3 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
We do cut off our fingertips to keep them cleaner.
[–]peter_venture 2 points3 points4 points (11 children) | Copy Link
No. We cut our fingernails, not our fingertips.
[–]btickles -4 points-3 points-2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for swooping in and stopping another out of control joke captain correcto.
We all owe you our literal lives.
[–]peter_venture 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
And thank you for your self righteousness. It certainly comes in handy!
[–]btickles -3 points-2 points-1 points (8 children) | Copy Link
Anytime, i would happily trade in my foreskin if it meant you would get a personality.
[–]peter_venture 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
I said thank you. Isn't that the validation you're looking for? But if inventing reasons to feebly insult strangers is more your speed, looks like you've achieved it. Kudos!
[–]btickles -2 points-1 points0 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Kudos to you cruising the internet for corrections. Btw i said thank you first, we both know you are the one seeking validation. Try becoming an actual editor, it might pay better, and you wont have to feel insulted for no reason, because there will actually be a reason for you to act like that.
[–]peter_venture 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
Ha, that's funny. Projecting your motives onto others, then berating them for saying something you disagree with, for some unfathomable reason. Offering an insight isn't trying to be an editor. You aren't good at discerning motive, but that doesn't stop you, does it? Good job! Mission accomplished.
[–]btickles -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
You aren’t good at discerning when to offer insight, taking a joke, dealing with someone saying something you don’t like or letting things go. You are good at making needless corrections and making yourself out to be a victim.
Very womanly personality traits.
I could fathom why you are like this.
[–]peter_venture 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Didn't realize your permission was needed, or that you are the arbiter of these things. Whew! Lucky for me, and all of us, that you are out there. Keep it up!
[–]btickles0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
My permission is not needed for you to use the reddit app or its features. However you REPLIED TO ME. I cant believe that it would be so unfathomable to you that you might get a response. I cant believe that you would get sooooo butthurt over a couple jokes.
Either way im done with you now. Seriously, you remind me of my ex girlfriends.
[–]peter_venture1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
You said something nonsensical and tried to play it off as a joke. You used sarcasm and so I replied in kind. Your 'joke' made no sense and you tried psychoanalyzing my one off response. You tried attributing nonsensical motives. Then you moved on to low-key homophobia. I'm going to play with the adults now. Run off and play with your little friends. You'll be happier that way.
[–]btickles1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
I will.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
you must be some kind of crazy person.
[–]btickles 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And you must be yet another person born without a sense of humor.
[–]volabimus 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The argument is based on a false premise to start with.
If you were filthy to the point of having problems being circumcised wouldn't help you. The myth that it requires special attention is probably responsible for most of the foreskin development problems when parents try to retract the foreskin of children to "wash" before it is developed causing problems like phimosis (imagine doing that to your daughter).
The dumb thing is the US is only country I know that has routine group showering at school and they are the circumcised ones.
[–]YesAmAThrowaway 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course this post was one of the ones getting removed amongst the humongous flood of posts addressing the same thing over and over again. Definitely not telling at all.
[–]EviessVeralan 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
I can understand if we were talking about times in the past where people didn't have the luxury of being able to shower everyday. I never really understood why this is an argument in modern times where we do have that luxury now.
[–]Make_me_laugh_plz -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Not everybody lives in America dude.
[–]EviessVeralan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I never said everywhere has a decent plumbing system. All i said is that the "its cleaner" argument isnt a good one in a place and time with good plumbing.
[–]Njordin 2 points3 points4 points (22 children) | Copy Link
Well i got one and am extremely happy as were all my ex gfs and now wife. Its perma clean and smells well 24/7. It probably saved my life when i had two times sex with an HIV+ person. All in all super happy beccause looks good, feels good and smells good. Got compliments and was asked about it without mentioning it. It was no religious reason but medical one.
I am not advocating for doing that stuff with people who cant decide for themselfs but i wouldnt want it changed for myself. Just to share an different viewpoint.
Edit: just wanted to add: i have kids / a son and wouldnt do that to him without a very good reason.
[–]ChadWolf98 7 points8 points9 points (17 children) | Copy Link
Curious, how does being cut effect getting/not getting HIV?
[–]DarthEquus 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
It really doesn't prevent anything. It is incredibly stupid to think that a lack of foreskin will keep you safe over a condom.
The frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ([1], [2], [3]). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%/2.5%). Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors including, but not limited to:
There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, there are statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
Further criticism of the African RCTs:
Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission
Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence
Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
A fatal irony: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase transmission of HIV
A comparison of condom use perceptions and behaviours between circumcised and intact men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States
The Fragility Index in HIV/AIDS Trials
The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors (mostly behavioral) play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, proper sexual education, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs.
[–]ChadWolf98 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I knew that it wont prevent it I was just curious what the OC intended with that part. Tha nk you for doing the research.
[+]FatFingerHelperBot -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "[1]"
Here is link number 2 - Previous text "[2]"
Here is link number 3 - Previous text "[3]"
Please PM /u/eganwall with issues or feedback! | Code | Delete
[–]Njordin -3 points-2 points-1 points (13 children) | Copy Link
The chance to get STDs is much lower in most cases since your tip is very dry and the skin does not let stuff through that much. https://sti.bmj.com/content/76/6/474
[–]ChadWolf98 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Interesting read, tho in the case of HIV smaller chance doesnt cut it imo. I certainly wont rush to get circumcised.
Btw if you dont mind if I ask: Was that person aware of the HIV infection or not? Cuz some laws were made that seem to stop requesting informing the partner about HIV status which I feel is very dangerous law.
[–]Njordin -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
Well i wouldnt do it again, too. Who likes sharp things near that area? Just wanted to give an different viewpoint since many of the circumsised people do not suffer from it and there actual benefits. What doesnt make it a good thing but i think you know what i mean. I wouldnt change it back now if i could and my son won't get it.
To your question: i'm from germany so idk how the laws are in the states but here its mandatory for hiv+ folks to tell their partners. She didn't tell me and the person after me because she thought it can't be true and would go away by ignoring it. We weren't even informed by her but the clinic requested us to visit and let us test. I didnt go to the police but the other guy went and took a lawyer. I was young, broke af and happy to get away healthy that time. Charges were dropped because she made big eyes and told em she were intimidated by our physical appearences as men and couldnt tell us then. That was in ~2008 i guess. They changed the law for the better some years ago.
[–]ChadWolf98 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Well it was a very interesting POV but I am not entitely sure being cut is what avoided HIV. Anyway its never a thing to gamble with and I probably would never risk it.
The law part was a good change but that charges were dropped bc le big anime women eyes makes me furious. That bitch could have killed you, maybe she infected many men. Whoever thought not requiring to disclose HIV should be law was an evil person. Glad to see most countries are not idiots on this issue. I am not American either and our laws are probably the same as yours but in the US some laws made headlines due to their stupidity about the issue.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
nonsense. american men (who are nearly all circumcised) have two to three times more STDs than european men (who almost always have their whole penis). most STDs are not getting in through your skin in the first place. there's an opening to the inside of your body at the tip of your penis, and circumcision actually removes the covering from it.
[–]Njordin 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
There are a lot of studies about that. Did you read some?
Edit: https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20090325/circumcision-cuts-stds
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/684706/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30386-8/fulltext
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a27007693/circumcision-health-benefits-stds/
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
yup, i looked at the STD rates in america and compared them to the STD rates in spain, france, germany, sweden, and italy. the circumcised men have two to three times more STDs.
[–]Njordin 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
You are absolutelly full of BS. Sorry to tell you that. Its just wrong. It is cleaner and does smell less since it isn't even wet. Thats a fact and known to many folks here. Its not wet. How hard is that to understand? Things that are wet and warm smell a lot faster then things that are dry af. I never ever saw something like smegma or like anything. It looks the same always and it smells the same always. Only sweating changes something. About STDs there were a lot of studies indicating otherwise. 'You watched at numbers and made your own little study' wow. Did you look at why americans are more prone to STDs? Can you prove thats the reason? I bet not. Go read and educate yourself before you continue your crusade here.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
how many whole penises have you smelled?
STD rates don't lie. american men are nearly all circumcised, and they have two to three more STDs than men with whole penises.
[–]Njordin 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20090325/circumcision-cuts-stds
Thats one of many many studies. Go read them. I'm not advocating for circumsision at all. But these are facts.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/684706/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30386-8/fulltext
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a27007693/circumcision-health-benefits-stds/
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html
[+]needletothebar0 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
no, those aren't facts. real world statistics prove that they're wrong. in actual life, circumcised men have much higher rates of STDs than men with whole penises do.
[–]Njordin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Please link the research paper that comes to that conclusion, too. I mean if its so easy to see i bet medical researchers, actual professionals, must have seen that correlation long ago.
[–]peter_venture 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Glad this worked for you, but how did this make your gfs and wife happy? They wouldn't like how it looked otherwise? This seems like shallow behavior that shouldn't be encouraged.
And now it's perma clean? You still wash it, right? Otherwise, eww.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
the part of a penis you have left needs to be washed just as often as a whole penis would. it is not "perma-clean", and is not any less prone to smelling. it's foolish to believe cutting parts of your penis off will protect you from STDs. and yeah, i'm sure those surgical scars look great.
[–]Njordin 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You didnt read actually anything about that right? Its cleaner and needs a lot more time to get a smell then normal since it isnt anything wet there. Thats logic. About STDs are a lot of studies. Google em and ream em and then come back.
[–]makosh22 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
In my country circumcision is done for medical reasons or for muslim diaspora. The rest of parents don't do it. Or you can do it as adult if you want it. But little boys? Either nobody tells or ordinary ppl around (we live in area where some 80% of ppl are families with small children) just don't do it
[–]sjay997 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
I never realized that circumcision was common thing. In my country majority are uncircumcised.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
it's forced on nearly all baby boys born in america in their first week of life. they prey on us when we're at our most defenseless.
[–]sjay997 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Damn that’s fucked up. Is there a government mandate or is it something parents do just because?
[+]maylajand -13 points-12 points-11 points (19 children) | Copy Link
For this being a men’s rights sub I really don’t see a lot of support for circumcised men on here. A lot of men prefer the pen is they have and saying one or the other is superior is perpetuating insecurity in all men’s minds in my opinion
[–]Punder_man 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm all for those who feel comfortable with being circumcised.. and in fact I have not seen anything along the lines of attacking men for being circumcised.. I have however seen the opposite where those who ARE circumcised attack the very idea that circumcision is wrong..
At the end of the day many of us just want to make it Illegal to perform what is essentially cosmetic surgery on children who can not consent to it..
Why is that so fucking wrong to so many people?
[–]Atilla942 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
GTFO with your obsession with mutilating baby boys you sick fuck. Circumcision should be a choice made by men when they are 18+, they can then decide if its something they wish to do. Forcing it on babies is inhumane and anyone who defends sick practices like this is probably either a religious freak, paedophile or a misandrist feminist.
[–]Soda_BoBomb -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think it's something that needs to wait until 18, just until they're old enough to understand the procedure and make the choice themselves.
As someone who is circumcised, I prefer it personally. But I don't think it should be done immediately at birth, even if just because waiting lowers the chances of it going wrong. Mostly because consent though.
[–]ByronsLastStand 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
They literally haven't in most cases been given the option to experience the unmutilated, intact penis as an adult.
[–]SimpleBuffoon 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Let me put it this way: I'm circumcised. I'm just fine with my penis. That doesn't mean everyone is. Just like with trans rights we need to look at the individual and then not blanket statement about what is "right" or "wrong." We need to instead give autonomy and choice to the individual.
[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
No penis, no opinion.
[–]idontwanttobeavirgin 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
you can stfu everybody is free t have an opinion here thats why we don't bqn women like r/feminism does
[–]IleriumX -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
This sub is gonna adopt this mindset pretty quick
Hope not but when it comes to this I really think we might be hypocrites too
[–]idontwanttobeavirgin 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
that is exactly what im scared of we have no chance if we become like them and become an echo chamber that way we will be exactly what they say we are and exactly what they are assholes
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]zukyameanmane 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Leave. You don't care in the first place. You never did.
You're going to meme about mens rights? What a poser.
[–]IleriumX 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you even read
I said I would leave of this sub would become an echo chamber
I care about the sub but I can't stay if I know we have become the same as r/feminism, an echo chamber, which we so tried to avoid, we tried to be better, if it fails then we are the hypocrites,
Also no one wants to participate in a community full of toxic bumbasses ^
[–]IleriumX 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Also you're dumb and try to make a fukin drama like an actual dumbass but k
[–]EviessVeralan 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
At least from what ive noticed its not the idea of circumcision that they have an issue with, its the idea of doing it as an infant so they have no choice in the matter.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
the idea of mutilating somebody's penis is what i have an issue with.
[–]EviessVeralan 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Why do you care if a man wants to mutilate his own penis?
[+]thruster_man -8 points-7 points-6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
I mean as far as i hate forced circumcision we dont hear circumcised dudes talk about their extreme dick cheese because they havent washed it in 20 years.
[–]zukyameanmane 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Good stuff. Some people don't wash their asses either so let's cut their asses off.
[+]thruster_man -7 points-6 points-5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Totally the same thing
[–]zukyameanmane 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
It really is. You're just an idiot.
[–]thruster_man -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh no. Anyways
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
we don't hear dudes with whole penises talk about that, either.
[–]thruster_man 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Bruh every other day some dude on tifu says he never washed his dick in his entire life
[–]chrismeboi -1 points0 points1 point
(1 child) | Copy Link
When I was born my mom didn’t want me circumcised. As i grew older i had trouble pulling the skin off the if head my penis.(I think my head was bigger the skin hold around it) My mom took me to a doctor and told us i needed to be circumcised because i probably had a massive build up of knob cheese since ive never been able to expose my head. Two days later after surgery was the first time i ever saw the head of my penis at 8 years old.
[–]peter_venture 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Well that's the point here: do it only when medically necessary. Don't do it to just every boy as they are born.
[–]yodreadd 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm from Brazil, we don't have a lot of Jews here. But I thought that in Anglophone world, only the Jews were circumcised. Isn't?
[+]ElegantDecline -10 points-9 points-8 points (22 children) | Copy Link
Only fathers should be able to make that decision for their sons, and ONLY if they were circumcized themselves. End of story.
Men of the Himba tribes get their front teeth knocked out of their jaws when they turn 15. This is called human tribalism. People have done weird shit like that for thousands of years to increase survival rates by bonding with their tribes.
We don't live in a world where everyone needs to be the same and act the same. That is called totalitarian tyranny. Why the fk would anyone want that?
[–]zukyameanmane 4 points5 points6 points (20 children) | Copy Link
If it involves removing part of your body you should need consent in order to do it.
Why is it that people are OH SO against religion up until it comes to mutilating baby boys. Then it becomes okay because it's just a religious custom.
[–]ElegantDecline -3 points-2 points-1 points (19 children) | Copy Link
maybe because those traditions predate religion by thousands of years and helped men bond together and thrive above the opposite gender for thousands of years?
If you're not thinking about that, you need to ask yourself why not. Don't get stuck at the 'consent' aspect of it. Nothing that happens to us as babies has been consented to, but we all live and die and live the circumstances regardless. The oldest, most prolific and generally content men i've ever known were circumcized, which tells me it is not harmful.
[–]zukyameanmane 1 point2 points3 points (18 children) | Copy Link
If you knew a bunch of guys who became millionaires despite having no arms you wouldn't strive to normalize cutting peoples arms off would you?
Your post makes no sense. Don't appeal to my sense of masculinity with a shit sandwich and tell me it's filet mignon.
[–]ElegantDecline -3 points-2 points-1 points (17 children) | Copy Link
not just a bunch. like 90% of em. In at least a third of the world, the majority of men have been circumcized for well over a thousand years, hundreds of successive generations.
At the end of the day, it's whatever works bro. You don't need to understand something for it to work. You know what else works? Getting married young and having a dozen kids. Doesn't have to make sense.
There are many millions of men who lived and died trying to make sense out of their lives, trying to be good boys, and wasting it in vain, removing themselves from the gene pool, leaving NOTHING behind for the sake of 'progress'
[–]zukyameanmane 5 points6 points7 points (16 children) | Copy Link
Well if you think ancient customs are so fantastic then you must be fine with the female equivalent to circumcision also.
If so then congrats on not being a hypocrite...If not...I have some bad news.
[–]ElegantDecline 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
They've got upsides and downsides, like everything else in life. But you can't ignore the survival benefits.Female circumcision has a different intent than male circumcision. I've dated a woman like that. It changes their personality and takes away the ability to orgasm through clitoral stimulation. very interesting. It tends to render women less sexually adventurous, although it does not make women more faithful in the big picture.Either way, no, I don't personally support it.
Male circumcision has no negative effects. My loads are huge and feel voluptuous, my friend.
When it's time to finish, it looks and feels like an entire mechanized roman legion charging out of the fog. it's grandiose. It's glamorous. It's Voluptuous.
[–]zukyameanmane 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
That's a lot more words than required to say, "My name is ElegantDecline and I'm a massive hypocrite."
Your previous argument saying we should embrace customs such as circumcision goes only one way even though their is NO benefit to circumcision for either gender.
It's funny that you list the exact things that have happened to me because of my botched circumcision yet you think you can speak for all men about very personal issues.
I have a profound loss of sensation during sex and am very self conscious about the aesthetics of what's left of my dick.
But you don't care at all. You only give a shit about one gender and it's not your own.
Also it's very meta of you to have that name considering that as our conversation goes on your intellect has sharply declined...not very elegantly though sadly.
[–]ElegantDecline 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, I disagree with this black and white way of thinking. The situation is a lot more nuanced than that.
Are you ok with kids getting gender surgery because it was with "consent"? What about abortion? Is that consensual?
You are what you know. If a person gets bombarded with propaganda 24/7, their consent is flawed and nonconsensual.
sorry they messed up your dick. that's a medical malpractice issue though.
[–]zukyameanmane 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
Here's a little advice for next time if you want people to take what you say seriously.
Don't appeal to tradition in an attempt to make something seem acceptable. Masses of people have believed in ignorant things since mankind first discovered fire.
In a hundred years all circumcision will be seen as barbaric and needless.
You are the one who is thinking in black and white, not me. male mutilation good, female mutilation bad is your whole argument and it's not based in reality.
[–]ElegantDecline1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
black and white thinking. And you're getting pissy and gaslighting because I refuse to follow that same line of thinking. It's called an opinion. we all have one, bruh.
This is not a male/female issue. It never was. This is taking away focus from actual discrimination that hurts and shortens mens lives.
Again, i'm sorry your dick got all mangled, but it's unusual. like people who died from the vaccine. My opinion remains unchanged. Hang in there.. hopefully few more years they'll be able to fix you good as new. In fact, I know they will. medical tech is advancing faster every day.
They'll fix your tool and throw another 3" on top of that 😁
[–]zukyameanmane3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
You're right but for the wrong reasons.
It's because people don't care about men.
[–]ElegantDecline1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
It's most prevalent in muslim countries, where men still run the show.
It is a lot less prevalent in europe and the new world.
So i'm not sure that conclusion is 100% accurate
[–]zukyameanmane3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
At least you're consistently insane.
Do you really want to use Muslim majority countries practicing it as a reason to accept it as normal??
Do you also want to import stoning people for being gay or wearing burkas in the west?
[–]ElegantDecline1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
🙄
[–]Clemicus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Press X to doubt.
It substantially decreases penial sensation which raises the question when did you get circumstanced? The implication by your argument is you got circumstanced in adulthood, as you were able compare before and after
And the basis of your argument seems to be a fallacy.
Edit:
Found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/o89eiq/hygiene_argument/h35a9mx?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
[–]DarthEquus 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Circumcision only causes no harm if you assume the foreskin and its functions have no value to its owner, which you simply cannot do on behalf of all men. I could also justify routine double mastectomies, which would eliminate breast cancer and save half a million lives every year, if I disregard the value that breasts have to women.
Regarding putting FGM in another category...again, that's cultural bias talking.
Type IV FGM, which is performed in Indonesia and is the most common form of FGM worldwide, removes nothing from the girl's body. A study found that 92% of Indonesian mothers support the practice, and only 2% say it isn't beneficial. In Egypt, where the forms of FGM are more severe (Type I), 82% of women support continuing the practice, with a majority responding that it doesn't lessen sexual pleasure. In Africa, an anti-FGM task force claims that in cultures that cut women:
"Research by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced." - "Many women who have had genital surgeries view the procedure as a cosmetic beautification, moral enhancement, or dignifying improvement of the appearance of the human body. This is true of both male and female genital modifications in African cultures."
"The widely publicized and sensationalized reproductive health and medical complications associated with female genital surgeries in Africa are infrequent events and represent the exception rather than the rule."
"Female genital surgeries in Africa are viewed by many insiders as aesthetic enhancements of the body and are not judged to be 'mutilations.'"
"Female genital surgery in Africa is typically controlled and managed by women. Similarly, male genital surgery is usually controlled and managed by men. Although both men and women play roles in perpetuating and supporting the genital modification customs of their cultures, female genital surgery should not be blamed on men or on patriarchy."
"Demographic and health survey data reveal that when compared with men, an equal or higher proportion of women favor the continuation of female genital surgeries."
The truth is, in cultures that cut girls, FGM is justified in a myriad of ways, often by the women in those cultures. There are also some health benefits:
The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years)
Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?
Clitoral Phimosis: Effects on Female Sexual Function and Surgical Treatment Outcomes
We could justify FGM fairly easily. All we have to do is disregard a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and ignore the value a woman might place on these body parts.
Likewise, for male circumcision, the intents are probably not what you think:
30 CE
[Philo, Special Laws, 1.8–12, 104–7.]
1190
[Maimonides, The Guide for the Complex, 3.49 (118a), 609.]
1860
Athol A. W. Johnson. On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.
1871
M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Theraputic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol.14 (1871): pp.368-374.
1894
Peter Remondino, On Negro Rapes and their Social Problems, The National Popular Review, vol. 4 (1894): p. 3.
1898*
N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp.249-251.
1935
R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision, British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.
Research has demonstrated foreskin makes masturbation and sex better for a man and his partner (Bronselaer, 2013; Taves, 2002; O'Hara, 1999; Gallup & Burch, 2004; Podnar, 2012; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Weiss & Brody, 2009; Frisch, 2011; Podnar, 2011)
[–]BornAgainSpecial 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I doubt her female circumcision was performed in under sterile hospital conditions by a trained medical professional.
[+]needletothebar1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
no it doesn't. why are you ignoring the survival benefits?
how does female circumcision change anybody's personality?
male circumcision takes away the ability to orgasm through foreskin stimulation.
[–]ElegantDecline 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I know this comes from a place of brotherhood. But I feel it's misplaced. In a few years, improved reconstruction will make this a moot point.
At some point, we have to think about wether this is worth dividing men over.. it's not.
[–]bford_som -3 points-2 points-1 points (5 children) | Copy Link
Most people do clip their fingernails.
[–]peter_venture 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
But they don't remove the entire fingertip to avoid having to clean their fingernails.
[–]bford_som -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
And they don’t remove the entire glans of the penis either.
[–]peter_venture 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
So then the apt comparison is that the entire fingernail isn't removed to promote cleanliness. Not a much better alternative.
[–]bford_som -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Agreed.
[–]Unable-Pin-9196 -4 points-3 points-2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
i dont really think circumcision is a big deal
[+]maylajand -14 points-13 points-12 points (6 children) | Copy Link
We can wash our hands as many times a day as we want, how many times a day do you get the chance to peel back your foreskin and wash it because you think it could be harvesting microbes and bacteria.
[+]forzion_no_mouse6 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
How many times a day do you scrub your asshole? Once a day is usually enough for most people.
[–]maylajand 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I see that people are triggered by this. I made the statement that the analogy is flawed, and wether you think vaginas and buttholes are dirty or not, the analogy is still flawed
[–]idontwanttobeavirgin 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
everytime you go to the toilet duh
[–]maylajand 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I wasn’t aware it’s socially acceptable to whip a peeper out in a public restroom. I mean common guys.
I didn’t even say uncircumcised dicks are dirtier than circumcised ones. I pointed out that it is clearly a very different scenario than cutting off your fingernails for cleanliness. Perhaps medical science got it wrong for generations, and circumcision is inconsequential or even just harmful. But many men I have met don’t seem to think they were mutilated at birth, and are fine and actually prefer the fact that they were circumcised at birth.
It is insulting to force the narrative of victimhood on someone who never asked for it and has never felt that way; Just as insulting as it is to call someone dirty when they do in fact clean themselves. I’ll admit I felt ashamed it took a female to point that out on a thread on a men’s rights sub and felt vindictive on behalf of my circumcised friends.
I was harsh by saying trigger words such as “bacteria and microbes” and by detailing the act of pulling back foreskin. That was the wrong way to make my point and has drawn out some insecurity which is the opposite point of this sub.
I wish all you men out there, with all types of wieners, the best of luck in all of your sexual and/or non sexually related endeavors.
[–]SimpleBuffoon 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you live in a country that doesn't have conveniently available access to water and soap?