Why would the AAP remove this paragraph about foreskin from their 1990 pamphlet and subsequent versions?

[–]codaclouds 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

the social reasons and fitting in arguments don't even work (assuming you are in the US or anywhere BUT israel or the middle east) because...

Most men are not mutilated. Most men have their whole genitals unless they are muslim or a jew. Around 80% of the world is intact.

Also, I never saw my bud's genitals. I nearly never saw my dad's genitals and its not like I would have been mentally destroyed if my dad told me "yours look different because we DIDN'T cut off part of you." That is exactly what I will tell my son if he ever asks me.

It just needs ban. It breaks the 14th amendment, is the ONLY procedure that removes healthy tissue from a child/a nonconsentual person and NO health organization ON EARTH recommends it universally..

It is hanging on for dear life.... and $$$ is one of the only reasons why.

[–]P1000123 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It is estimated that a single male foreskin can retail for around $100,000, which means that companies like SkinMedica – who use baby foreskin to create their skin care product – sell their foreskin facial creams for $150 an ounce.

In an article for The Tyee, Dr. Paul Tinari estimated that a single male foreskin can be worth upwards of $100,000. He argued that men who are circumcised have a right to the revenue made off the resale of their foreskins (just as someone who sells their hair for wigs would, for example).

Blanchett was referring to Georgia Louise’s “Hollywood EGF Facial”, which according to Louise’s website involves a serum “derived from the progenitor cells of the human fibroblast taken from Korean newborn baby foreskin”. Her prices aren’t advertised online, but Business Insider reports that the treatment costs $650USD and has a two-year wait list.

[–]CatOfGrey 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]codaclouds 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

not sure why you are so obsessed with the numbers when the act itself is the problem.

Numbers turn heads. It's difficult to get people to care about this issue.

just go ask a hospital (and see how quickly you get tossed out)

This is a fallacy: every industry has a right to keep their financial private. But seeing this on a list with hundreds of other body parts isn't really inspiring me that this is abnormal industry practice. It appears that this happens thousands of times per day, that the money isn't in 'foreskins', but rather the expensive laboratory processes that prepare and store tissues in general for future use in medicine: a hugely scientific and precise discipline.

There are plenty of arguments out there, and I'd like to use this one, but it's not a good one. If the response to this is 'sure, there are tons of body tissues for sale', then the argument falls flat, and it looks bad, because we are sensationalizing something that isn't sensational.

[–]codaclouds 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

people willingly get their appendixes taken out

THIS is the argument.

but you're all "welp, he's already been mutilated. big deal if we make some more money off it."

The problem is that the sale of parts is normal. Appendixes get sold. Lung tissue gets sold. 1000's of other parts get sold. It's not an issue. What makes circumcisions different has nothing to do with the disposition of the tissue. It has to do with an unnecessary and harmful procedure.

Don't try to convince people with weak arguments. Focus on the strong parts of the argument.

where's YOUR share of the profits from your stolen foreskin?

Where's my share of profits from my blood draws? Where's the share of profits from my shoulder surgery? Where's the share of profits from my other medical work? Don't confuse the issue by suggesting something that happens with 1000's of different procedures is only bad on one type of procedure. Focus on what makes that procedure different, not the same.

For heaven's sake, if I'm a troll, I'm saying "Ya know, we should probably encourage circumcisions to help pay for neo-natal care for preemies!" This is wrong, but I don't want to lead down that path.

[–]codaclouds1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

yet you've already formed an opinion that it's fine and normal because it "happens a lot" which is basically the same point that every pro-cutter makes about their own mutilation.

No. I was interested because of the claim that there was exception attention to the foreskins. Now I find that they are bought and sold like any other body part, I realize that if I use this as an argument against circumcision, someone is going to turn off and think I'm just arguing against nothing, because selling body parts is a common practice.

Think this through: "Circumcision results in normal things!" is not effective.

There are plenty of other reasons to argue against circumcision. It appears that the selling of the foreskin leads to poor arguments, or even worse, dishonest arguments that suggest that circumcisions are performed for some massive revenue source.

Let's stick with the arguments that we already have: this is a harmful practice with no measurable benefit.

you're acting like it's no different from any other medical procedure

To clarify, of course it has different traits from other medical procedures. These differences are important, but the sale of tissue is not one of these differences.

no baby elects to have a circumcision, meaning IT IS THEFT. but somehow that's fine with you.

It's not. Which is why I want honest arguments that nail down the problems, not focus on tangents which make us look like conspiracy nuts.

[–]codaclouds1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you're advocating for a crime by pretending it's not one.

Stop branding me as a circumcision supporter because I suggest arguments against circumcision that are more logically sound. Stop ignoring my posts to brand me as something I'm not.

I humbly suggest that when arguing against circumcision, you not appear like it's a deeply emotional issue, or you will appear like a fanatic. I assume that you aren't some sort of troll attempting to brand people who are anti-circumcision as emotional, irrational hotheads. So don't do that.

you don't get to THINK AWAY an objective reality just because you don't like it.

What's the objective reality? Selling tissue is not bad. Performing a circumcision is bad. If you argue that selling circumcision tissue is bad, you are missing the logical point. If you argue that non-consenting surgery on babies is the problem, you are missing the logical point.

[–]codaclouds1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatOfGrey1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you're the one missing logic here. pretending theft is not theft because "it's not a good argument" and "it happens a lot"

Hey, stop misrepresenting my words! How do expect people to support your argument against circumcision based on consent if you can't distinguish it from necessary surgery? You are failing at that task.

How can you expect people to support your argument against circumcision based on the sale of tissue if you can't distinguish it from many other procedures that are perfectly acceptable? You are coming off as an idiot - which I'm beginning to wonder if that's your objective.

You need to explain what's wrong with circumcision, not what's normal about it. If you can't explain the difference, then shut up about it. Circumcision isn't wrong because the baby doesn't consent. It isn't wrong because it's a 'theft' - that's a loaded word made up that serves no purpose unless you connect the dots: circumcision is wrong because the surgery has no measureable benefit. That's what makes it a 'theft', and not an ordinary surgical procedure.

Another user claimed a $100,000 value on foreskins, which turns out to be drastically inflated - there is no market that pays that price for a foreskin. There is no 'body parts market' that is driving increased circumcisions - there might be a small medical services angle, but it's not that big of a conspiracy. So if we are exaggerating like this, it make us look like we're being conspiratorial, not the other side.

To be honest, I haven't gone down through these arguments for a long time. The current AAP policy is to very weakly recommend circumcision, but leave the decision up to the parents. So apparently the best science according to this organization is that the cost-benefit is not clear.

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jmg83 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheGlassStone -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted83671 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]codaclouds 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGlassStone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes: the American Academy of Pediatrics LOL 😀

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAP Link here

Link to full text here - scroll down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The British Medical Journal also published an extensive critique:

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

Also the Journal of Medical Ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The foreskin is not a birth defect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]throwaway_ftb 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]P1000123 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]P1000123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]iAmInLoveWithMyWife -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddituser257 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]iAmInLoveWithMyWife -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drago1214 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]platesizedareola[S] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drago1214 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]64774661 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because you are personally okay with the fact that your parents removed a part of your body without your consent, does not mean that the rest of us are, or should be.

[–]brober23 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]iAmInLoveWithMyWife -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]brober23 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]platesizedareola[S] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]brober23 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why would the AAP remove this paragraph about foreskin from their 1990 pamphlet and subsequent versions?
Author	platesizedareola
Upvotes	142
Comments	128
Date	October 17, 2018 3:12 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9ozigr/why_would_the_aap_remove_this_paragraph_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-would-the-aap-remove-this-paragraph-about.891728 https://theredarchive.com/post/891728

Comments