TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

aPseudonymPho Archive

View 1 posts and 387 comments by aPseudonymPho on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
43

aPseudonymPho/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:06 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

You’re correct that the comment you’re responding to is not accurate about the history of circumcision in more ancient cultures. It’s a common myth that circumcision “made sense back then because of how dirty it was and lack of water”, but the reality is that circumcision has always been a socio-cultural ritual, that often had religious significance. It’s purpose has been the tampering of the male sexual experience for most of its history, with the applications varying in accordance with prevail…
/r/MensRights23/05/19 12:58 PM
1

It really has nothing to do with competency, as again, there is no standard being measured against, nor is it an odd man out phenomenon (as true rates of complication are unknown, due to lack of reporting, lack of study, lack of proper data tracking and lack of clear definitions about complication caused by the nonexistent standard of tissue removal). Whether you’re left with 80% of your sexually sensitive tissue or 20% is up to the personal opinions and thoughts of the person performing the pro…
/r/MensRights24/01/19 04:32 PM
2

Not necessarily. Circumcised men show higher rates of basically all sexual dysfunction, including premature ejaculation and difficulty / inability to climax. This is counterintuitive at first, but is due to the fact that there is no such thing as a “standard” amount of tissue to take. Every cut is different, and for the most part they all eliminate tissue involved in fine touch sensation that allows the man to feel orgasm coming from further away. Intact men don’t tend to report orgasm “sneaking…
/r/MensRights24/01/19 03:08 PM
6

The problem is that most people don’t understand that not all sexual sensation contributes to orgasm trigger the same. The sensitivity you lack isn’t in the ability to achieve orgasm (obviously). The difference is in detail and breadth of experience. Consider reading Braille for example. This works because the finger tips are incredibly fine touch sensitive, and have a high concentration of fine touch receptors on them. Your fingers sense a high level of “detail” about the things they touch. Tex…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 03:13 PM
6

You’re correct, and can find numerous examples of people (both civilian and medical professionals) pushing for increased medicalization of their genital cutting rituals using North America as the primary justification. It is a huge issue in sub-Saharan Africa for example, where the pressure to bring these procedures into the hospital setting is gaining significant traction with the increased optics of “circumcision” as an issue. https://www.religiousfreedomnews.com/2018/08/13/australian-court-ru…
/r/MensRights29/08/18 07:46 PM
1

Yeah but unfortunately it doesn't work on other peoples comments, so not that useful in this case.
/r/MensRights08/07/18 04:35 PM
5

What's odd to me is that the above posted criticism from the Royal Dutch Medical Association comes right out at the beginning and states that there are no health benefits....But, as you've alluded to, culture/tradition tends to confound (both my own culture, and the culture among researchers). Why does someone have to be wrong? Can it not be more complex than a simple black and white scenario? To provide some clarity, the issue is not the discussion surrounding the existence of benefits, because…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 09:58 PM
6

I edited it so you knew why you no longer had a comment to respond to. You’ve made it clear you don’t actually care at all about discussing this topic, and prefer to beat your chest in pride for being contrarian. That’s also okay, but I’m not really interested in engaging that kind of behavior. Had I seen your other responses first I wouldn’t have commented at all. But sure, I can be cunty for you if that’s your preference, no problem.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 09:27 PM
4

Not an argument, and not really interested in a discussion anymore either, hence the edit. I was originally curious to flesh out your position more clearly, but considering you’ve done that elsewhere there’s really no point pretending I’m interested in rehashing that directly with you now. Take that as you will, cunty or otherwise makes no difference to me. Cheers
/r/MensRights07/07/18 09:05 PM
4

Thanks for confirming my suspicions lol, couldn’t have written it better myself
/r/MensRights07/07/18 08:53 PM
4

Edit: Removed. Unfortunately it’s probably not actually worth engaging you given your conduct throughout this thread.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 08:21 PM
9

With respect to opinions being used for these statements rather than data, it’s worth noting that it’s not uncommon for professional organizations to make “opinion” based recommendations that are not completely fleshed out in data. Sometimes the data just isn’t available or is unclear, and professional consensus have to govern practice guidelines pending further research. This is true, but wholly fails to address the very real fact that; The standard of modern medical ethics already states that …
/r/MensRights07/07/18 08:15 PM
3

Sorry, I’m not interested in a discussion with someone who’s certain they already know everything. You bringing up historical life expectancy as if things like modern medicine as a whole and perpetual warring weren’t more significant factors, really shows how deluded you are on this topic. I’m happy to leave you believing what you want, and in return you can assume anything you’d like about me. Makes absolutely no difference. Take care
/r/MensRights25/06/18 02:03 PM
6

I really don’t have time to fully cite responses to all of this (especially on mobile) so I’ll leave you to do your own research should you care to actually be fully informed. vaginal fluid containts a large number of antibacterial elements. one of them being hydrogen peroxide. it sort of cleans itself, although issues certainly come up now and then. Yes, as does the mucosal membrane of the foreskin (which is the root of much of the immunological functionality of the genitals). This immunologica…
/r/MensRights25/06/18 02:00 PM
8

Your reply speaks to a drastic ignorance of basic biological principles, as well as history. Circumcision has never been necessary for hygiene purposes, although it’s certainly been touted as such. Let me ask you, if the folds of the foreskin are so hazardous to health that they have to be removed, how do women survive with a literal flesh cavern in their bodies? They are comprised of the same tissue types, with very similar microbiological profiles. Have you considered the idea that perhaps cle…
/r/MensRights25/06/18 01:47 PM
7

This really isn’t true at all.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 01:32 PM
3

This is a bit old, but I’m going to offer my opinions as someone who has been discussing circumcision with strangers for the past 5 or 6 years now. Some important points to keep in mind. Many people are scientifically illiterate. I don’t mean this to be rude or condescending. I am lucky that I am science inclined and thus received an education that instilled the critical thinking skills and background necessary to truly dive into this topic. Many many folks are not that lucky, and have been dras…
/r/MensRights09/03/18 04:10 PM
12

In cultures that regularly practice genital cutting, the state of being genitally cut is normalized, celebrated and lauded. This is exactly the case for the US where the circumcised penis has been elevated to a level of passable acceptance, while the intact anatomy is reserved for after hours punchlines. Culture is a very powerful force. You can find numerous people living in the male genital cutting culture of the US, who explicitly profess their preference and desire for mutilated genitalia in…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:54 PM
24

The problem is that your circumcision is likely quite different from those performed routinely in childhood. If you were circumcised to treat a medical condition, then why would you expect that treatment to have a negative outcome for you? Consider for example someone who was in a terrible car accident and needed to have their leg amputated to live. That person probably wouldn’t be happy about it, but at the same time being alive is better than being dead, so there likely aren’t any complaints a…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 01:17 PM
3

You can find plenty of information on the topic just by googling "tissue expansion". Throughout the literature you should find references to the newly grown tissue having the same qualities and sensation as the parent tissue. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385404/#!po=27.8846 This article also mentions the sensation being of similar quality to the original tissue; http://www.medbc.com/annals/review/vol_7/num_1/text/vol7n1p21.htm And a third; http://www.jprasurg.com/article/0007-12…
/r/MensRights27/07/17 04:51 PM
1

Well it's not a matter of getting detailed, it's a matter of relevance. That thin fragile layer of skin that has torn, is your remaining inner mucosa (and scar tissue, the boundary between them is contiguous). That's all that I've been trying to say. While that bit of skin can be very small, it is still the remaining inner mucosa.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 07:45 PM
5

No worries! I wasn't trying to put you on the spot or attack you. It's a complaint we hear often in intactivist circles and I'm always interested in alternative perspectives. The difficulty comes from the fact that this is a socially and culturally taboo topic to begin with. People do not want to have serious or critical conversations about it, period. I spent the better part of 3 years discussing this topic with people on a daily basis, and I can tell you that you learn very quickly to discern …
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:59 PM
3

I'm sorry as I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm genuinely unsure what the point of this detail is. Mucosa will be thinner anyways to begin with, and scar tissue is naturally weaker than tissue which has not been subject to trauma. Ultimately this doesn't change the fact that effectively removing 100% of the inner mucosa basically takes a conscious effort to do so, and technically is impossible without removing the glans as it is also covered in the same contiguous mucosal membrane as the inner f…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:43 PM
3

Genuinely curious, what would be your proposed alternative?
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:37 PM
18

More likely she doesn't realize that the US is effectively the only first world nation to routinely circumcise without medical indication. Ignorance is generally to blame, not faulty conclusions born from a long line of careful consideration and thought for the available information. Once you convince someone to take the time to explore the topic critically and as emotionally detached as possible, it basically argues itself into untenability. The difficulty is getting them to take that first ste…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:33 PM
2

The inner mucosa includes your glans and all tissue above your scar line (toward the glans). Unless your scar sits right at your coronal ridge (the "lip" of the head of your penis) everything between that ridge and the scar is your inner mucosa remnant. How much this is, varies widely from person to person. While it does happen, to have such an aggressive circumcision is atypical I'd say.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 06:30 PM
6

That takes two years or more for foreskin to come back. YMMV, but yes it is a long process. You are literally growing new skin to replace what was removed. This is why it also works so well, because that skin is a living part of your body you can feel. Not an artificial stand in. Plus wearing a device every single day. It is not necessary to wear a device. Many have completed their restorations through manual methods alone. I'll just have to live with not having a complete dick. I wish you all t…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:57 PM
9

If you're really that caught up about it and seriously want to know what it's like to be intact, I would strongly recommend foreskin restoration. While it's an imperfect solution, the results are quite staggering. I cannot imagine going back to life as a completely circumcised man, as the sensation I experience now being mostly restored is night and day better. If you have any questions, come check out /r/foreskin_restoration. We'd be glad to help get you started. Cheers
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:32 PM
8

Overaggressive washing and cleansing of the inner mucosa of the penis is well known to cause health problems (in particular increasing the risk of infections) for the exact same reasons it does in girls; it upsets the natural bacterial balance of the genitalia. Most likely ignorance surrounding the realities of the intact anatomy led to his being circumcised, not his foreskin. Sadly this is the case in the vast majority of times, as American medical professionals tend to be laughably ill equippe…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:25 PM
2

Don't put it off. Start now, the time is passing you by regardless and this is an endurance race. You won't regret it. I help mod over at r/foreskin_restoration. We'd be happy to have you and answer any questions you might have getting started.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 12:08 AM
1

I'm not very active these days, but if someone asks what appears to be an honest question in good faith, I'll do what I can to address it.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 08:07 PM
9

FGM exists along a gradient and is broken into 4 major classifications. The classifications are not directly ordered by severity of sexual / health consequences. Type 1 involved trimming of outer labia, similar to what many American women elect for now to achieve a more discreet external genital appearance. Occasionally, a small cut or incision is made in the clitoris as well. Type 2 is complete or partial external clitoridectomy. The amount of tissue removed varies widely by culture, location, …
/r/MensRights04/03/17 10:10 PM
5

I don't know what your interest levels might be, but if you ever find the curiosity I would strongly recommend checking out non-surgical foreskin restoration. While it is not a perfect replacement to what was lost, you will be staggered to realize just how much potential for improvement of your sexual experience really exists.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 08:06 PM
6

This is another common belief, but it really isn't true despite it intuitively making sense. The reason, is because this is a very over simplified and mono-dimensional way to view the sexual experience. Circumcised men experience delayed, and premature ejaculation at significantly higher rates than their intact peers. This is because parts of the foreskin participates with the glans, to modulate and control orgasm in an inversely related way. Sexual sensation can be orgasmic, or non-orgasmic. No…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:45 PM
7

No problem. You asked an honest and very common question that many intact men have found themselves wondering when this discussion comes up. I still feel that calling it the most sensitive part on the penis could easily be misleading Definitely! This is a huge part of why this debate is so difficult to have in a calm and reasoned manner. Most people are horribly misinformed about anatomy, biology, and microbiology to begin with. Nevermind the anatomy of their genitals, which they're very persona…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 06:14 PM
21

A couple things really. The biggest explanation for this is quite simple; How often have you sat down and tried to isolate the parts of your penis in a very clean and scientifically rigorous manner, to determine exactly where your sensation originates from? Many men spend 0% of their lives considering the anatomy and histology of their penis. They simply use it and enjoy it. When folks say that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, they are referring to a few things; The foreskin…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 05:29 PM
3

Sure, give me some time and I'll get back to you later
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 02:47 AM
3

I'll get back to you later / tomorrow when I have some more time
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 02:46 AM
7

No, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to pursue nonetheless. There are aspects of the sexual experience that are completely foreign to you. For example, do you know what it feels like to have the most sensitive parts of your shaft, rub and slide, fold and twist against your glans and itself, while having sex / masturbating? Probably not, and that is an entirely different way of feeling your penis that you'll never experience without restoring. That's a single change, I could easily write…
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 12:27 AM
2

I imagine this effect is more under-reported. There really isn't solid data available on this because; Circumcision is the only (if not, very likely to be one of the only) procedures a boy / man will undergo without long-term follow-up, and almost never has any kind of data collection attached to it. How often is a boy returned to the hospital following a circumcision? From what I've seen / read, it seems only when there is something so obviously wrong as to spark the parents concern. This is ge…
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 12:20 AM
7

If you're truly that curious about it, I'd suggest considering foreskin restoration. While the idea might seem somewhat bizarre at first glance, I can easily and without hesitation say it's the best decision I've ever made for myself.
/r/TheRedPill31/12/16 12:12 AM
4

Fewer than you might think. Commonly cited is phimosis in newborns, without realizing phimosis in newborns is incredibly common and nearly always resolves itself with time. There is no such thing as phimosis in newborns. Please do not talk about "newborn phimosis" because it spreads this myth and misconception that it is actually a thing. In reality it doesn't exist and one of the greatest causes of ACTUAL phimosis (parents trying to correct a perceived foreskin defect when they should just be l…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:36 PM
3

Convenient that the OP opts out of a response at every rebuttal you have pretty much. You've really been nothing but forthright in explaining your position and the origins of these opinions, and this person can't muster a shred of civility to address your arguments in a direct manner for even a moment. How disappointingly typical. There was never any interest in honest discourse. It seems he wanted nothing more than a chance to shout, "gotchya!" At the few people who actually work towards ending…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:28 PM
1

It's changed over time as I grew more and more tissue to work with. I initially started mostly with method 2, then have advanced to methods 3 and 4. Now I mostly use a combination of method 4, and the "stretch-squeeze" technique. Honesty, the method isn't important. What is important is actually logging the hours and putting in the time consistently, every day. It doesn't matter what method you use, if you can be disciplined and consistent, you will see progress.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:21 PM
1

Both actually. I began with the TLC-X and manual, and now use exclusively manual.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 07:07 PM
3

One article I read about Foregen was just full of mockery, though, making anyone who'd use their procedure out to be some kind of freak Of course. Shame and humiliation are two of the most powerful social tools for control, and they are wielded with an intense ferocity by those in the pro-circumcision camp to silence or quell dissenting opinion on the topic. To co-exist with anti-circumcision ideas opens the door for them to have to take responsibility for sexually mutilating their children (or …
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:29 PM
2

This is why I am here! Thank you, I can not thank you enough for this logical, level headed, and tempered response. Hey not a problem at all. Thank you for your consideration and attention. I appreciate you providing me the chance to present my thoughts on this topic. If there is no benefit what so ever than we have a serious issue in the states, can no one make an argument FOR circumcision? Allow me to clarify; there ARE benefits to circumcision. To say there are absolutely NO benefits to anyth…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 10:37 PM
4

You seem to be a pretty reasonable and genuinely concerned soon-to-be-parent, so I'll try and engage you in your uncertainties. Perhaps I can shed some light on the arguments you're being presented with and give a new perspective to consider. Would you consider vaccinations relevant? What about braces? Vaccines are a preventative tool with an incredibly high level of efficiency, that has little to no risk in most cases, does not damage, destroy, or remove any tissue or function from any part of …
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:36 AM
2

For now you're better off focusing on moving forward with the future instead of entertaining the past you long for. Something that might help is to start a journal, so that you may freely write your thoughts and feelings. I personally found this quite helpful to work through them, and still continue to this day.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:07 PM
1

You came a long way from shit porn just to make this shit post. I'm kind of honored actually.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:03 PM
3

Okay, on my dinner break so I have some time to reply to you now. I'm gonna address all of your comments here in this one reply, so it'll be a bit long. My only concern with restoring is what if Foregen comes through? Would restoring make this procedure more difficult? No. Given everything I understand about foregen and the process they're working on, it's most likely that your tissue would be recut at the circumcision scar or just below, and a biological tissue "scaffolding" applied such that t…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:02 AM
1

I'm just at work right now, but I'll get back to you later tonight. I'll say for now though to hang in there, I'll answer your questions and I think you'll find the answers less dismal than you anticipate.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:24 PM
4

Also note that not all uncircumcised people are more sensitive. I'm quite insensitive to be honest. While this is true, I want to mention that it is a vast oversimplification of the issue. Everyone (including OP) becomes so caught up in the idea of "sensitivity" that they overlook how this sensitivity is manifested biologically. At the most basic level, circumcision drastically reduces the types and varieties of sexual sensation available, in addition to a reduction of general touch sensitivity.…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:40 PM
1

Restoration is effective for many reasons, the least of which is the protection of the glans. It is effective because it restores a variety of types of sexual stimulation, that a circumcised man will never be able to experience. Imagine being colourblind, and then being able to regain some of your colour vision. That is the difference restoring makes.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:33 PM
7

I’ve looked into restoration, but other than recovering the glans it’s purposeless. I'd challenge you to support this assertion of yours. I'm slowly but surely nearly the end of my own restoration, and I can tell you point blank that you very much don't understand the process, the intact male anatomy, nor its functions if you truly feel this is the case. I can understand if you simply don't feel restoration is for you, however to say it's purposeless is really a statement born of ignorance. Rest…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:32 PM
1

Well, that clearly demonstrates then that the OP really has no understanding of the intact male anatomy, nor restoration.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:18 PM
1

Well when 50% or more of the male population has undergone involuntary genital reduction surgery it's not surprising to see them defend and laud the practice. You see the exact same thing by female victims in Africa, despite what some folks desperately believe.
/r/MensRights03/10/15 06:53 PM
3

It's because America as a society is far removed from FGM. Very few people will ever meet someone whom has undergone it, they are not exposed to a culture that supports it, and they don't at all understand the motivations / narratives surrounding it. This is why the prevailing tends around discussions of FGM leads to an unending regurgitation of myths, hyperbole and straight up lies. Consequently, the same socio-political drive to normalize and minimize its own genital cutting tradition leaves m…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:13 PM
4

It's not at all, "all I do". It's something that is important to me, because I know many people who have personally been drastically impacted by it. It's simply something I choose to be involved in. I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences in the past discussing this issue, and I don't doubt for a second you have. I myself replied to a person who's only reason for commenting was to take out their anger and aggression on others. No interest in discussion, no interest in achieving understand…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 06:03 AM
4

You're not arguing to change the mind of the person you're responding to. You're arguing to change the minds of the dozens of people watching, who will never step forward to engage you.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:42 AM
20

I'm circumcised and it bothers me a lot. It's not necessary, and I'm fucked since there's nothing that will return what was taken from me and my body. I just get to live with it forever, with no recourse whatsoever.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:41 AM
1

So what is more important to you then? Saving future sons from genitally mutilating surgical procedures, or taking out your anger / frustration on strangers? If you hope to be an intactivist who makes a difference, maybe you should think about that.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:32 AM
4

I'm a person with a post history mostly surrounding the circumcision debate. I don't like to comment on topics I am not very comfortable with or don't feel thoroughly educated on. Thus on every other topic, I just lurk. I also have alternative accounts, because opposing the status-quo of circumcision does not often end well in the real world (outside of reddit). Simple explanations to a simple phenomenon. No need to resort to ad hominem attacks in order to cast aspersions. You can just address t…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:16 AM
2

This is not how you change minds. Quite the opposite in fact.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:13 AM
7

What is the foundation of your argument that it isn't a body part? How do you personally define "body part"?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:00 AM
11

You don't have to consider yourself mutilated if you don't want to. Simple. Just as a rape victim doesn't need to consider themselves a "survivor" or whatever other label people might have for them if they don't want it. Perhaps you should do some serious reflection and ask yourself why you get so offended. Do you get equally offended when someone calls you any other name you don't like? If you don't believe you're mutilated, then why is it so critical that other people also believe it (and thus…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:54 AM
3

Some types of female genital cutting are worse than the average male circumcision, and vice versa, some are not. You need to specify what kind of FGM you're talking about, as well as the degree of circumcision, and numerous other factors before you can fairly compare them. The harm of circumcision is minimized all the time in the western world, because it is a cultural mainstay. Meanwhile, the damage of FGM is often (not always, and again depending on the type of FGM) overblown, because it is no…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 01:04 AM
1

You didn't link anything. Are there positives to female circumcisions? I'd read it if you linked it. You've completely missed the point. Looking exclusively for "benefits" to justify a destructive medical procedure performed on a non-consenting individual isn't only lazy, it's frankly irresponsible, and dangerous as a medical professional. I clearly outlined that the biological plausibility arguments used to justify male circumcision, apply equally well to female circumcision. Depending on the t…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 11:58 PM
1

Female circumcision: I know of no benefits. Known negative outcomes. I already told you what the benefits are, but you chose to ignore them because it doesn't fit your incredibly narrow and uninformed worldview. I also said I could provide citations, but remember you've summarily dismissed peer reviewed evidence because you have life experience that doesn't immediately run parallel (even when those discrepancies can be easily and rationally explained). But, despite these benefits, you still deny…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:28 PM
1

Like me, you're borderline insane. Speak for yourself please and thank you. is by far and away the more erogenous area for the male. You can learn this by being and/or talking to any male ever. So instead of turning to reproducible and controlled scientific data to determine your positions, you turn to personal anecdote. I'm not at all surprised. Just to be courteous, I will actually entertain this ridiculous "point" of yours for a moment, because it only helps to support my arguments. In the ci…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 09:31 PM
1

Ah, you got a notification because I tagged you in it with the /u/ function. It's in line replied to the correct person though.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:56 PM
1

What? It shows me on mobile I replied to him :s
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:45 PM
2

But yes, female genital mutilation is far, far worse How so, and on what grounds? What types of FGM are we talking about here? What types of circumcisions? How do you intend to demonstrate this assertion?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:42 PM
2

You're horribly undereducated on male vs. female circumcisions in the world today, or you INTEND to mislead.. The irony is palpable, as you've very clearly demonstrated your own ignorance in your hurry to put /u/Arakin in his/her place. The male circ is clipping/removal of the foreskin that acts as a natural "hood" to the glands penis from the shaft of the penis The foreskin is the primary erogenous tissue of the penis. It is the glans (not glands) which provides a protective mucosal surface for…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:25 PM
4

You really haven't spent any time studying or researching this topic have you? The vast majority of circumcised women say the exact same things circumcised men do. "It's healthier, it's cleaner, it looks better because the natural version is disgusting, im fine, I'm happy with my sexual function and my kids will be fine when they get it done too." If you'd like to contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way, I'd suggest not relying on foxnews for your knowledge base.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:02 PM
3

Unfortunately we're not talking about a position as if this is a matter of opinion, we're talking about things that are demonstrable through scientific inquiry (to a degree). However if you prefer to simply shirk intellectual responsibility by playing the "it's my opinion" card, then that's your prerogative.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:44 PM
4

First of all, no it isn't. The clitoris is mostly internal, and what is actually removed is the glans clitoris, the small fraction of the entire organ that is external. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated at all that they cannot be compared. On what grounds do you argue they cannot be compared? On the grounds that the clitoris is more important to sexual function? How about you make an argument, instead of just saying something as if that alone makes it a valid position.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:11 PM
22

The male and female reproductive anatomy are not analogous, they're homologous. What that means, is that this equivalence of yours isn't an equivalence at all, because it's based on an assumption of biological analogy. The clitoris is mostly internal, and cannot be completely removed. The innervation, function and contribution of the clitoris to sexual function is different from that of the foreskin in a multitude of ways. The two absolutely are comparable, and it is only ignorance of the realit…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:07 PM
4

but for these two acts to be fairly compared, we would have to be talking about the surgical removal of the head of the penis, not just the foreskin. On what grounds would you argue and demonstrate this statement?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:11 PM
7

There are benefits to anything. We could cleanly and safely remove both of your legs at the knee, and there would be benefits. That is a meaningless statement that fails to address any of the core issues with this procedure. The question you actually need to be asking is, "Are the benefits of circumcision best conferred through this procedure, and not obtainable through less invasive, less destructive, or more efficacious methods?" The answer to that is a clear cut no. There is no advantage to c…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:09 PM
1

The glans actually protects the foreskin, not the other way around. This is somewhat counterintuitive, because it seems like the glans would be king as its tucked away and wrapped up. However the glans has only protopathic sensitivity. The two work together, but the foreskin is the males primary sexual tissue.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 06:27 PM
5

Responding here since it'll be easier to touch on all of your points. Male circumcision is a traditional cultural practice that pre-dates recorded history, it was not started by "anti-masturbation activists" True, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how the modern first world came to adopt a practice that, "pre-dates recorded history". For most of recorded history, it is well documented and noted that the foreskin is the most highly sexually responsive aspect of the peni…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 05:46 PM
4

He didn't have phimosis. It is impossible to diagnose prior to the onset of puberty, which is when the foreskin becomes retractable for most boys. Prior to this point, ALL boys have physiological phimosis, which is the natural, healthy configuration of the penis until separation. North American doctors are not very educated on this fact however.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 07:49 PM
2

If you want to make a change for the better, take up restoring. You won't be disappointed if you can stick with it long enough to see results, and best of all it's as free as you want it to be.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 06:32 PM
3

You pulled the words right from my head. Cut men really just don't understand how important the gliding mechanic is; it's not a piece to better sex,its the entire core of the male sexual experience. Being circumcised is worlds apart; I say that as a fairly advanced restored man. The gliding mechanism is incredible, beyond what I ever imagined or hoped to regain. I'm nothing short of floored. You really just cannot fathom how the mechanics come together to be pleasurable, as a cut guy. You're spe…
/r/MensRights12/06/15 12:33 PM
3

Well that doesn't sound too bad. You should see a very nice end result and a lot of returned function in the end. Best of luck, and happy tugging!
/r/MensRights09/06/15 10:50 PM
2

Ah well that's good, I'm glad to hear you're working on it! If you don't mind my asking, how far along are you? How tightly were you cut in the first place?
/r/MensRights09/06/15 10:24 PM
3

Hey man, I know you might not have interest, or drive to take it up now, but I'd strongly suggest looking into restoration at some point in your life. I moderate the largest foreskin restoration board presently active; your circumstance is not an uncommon one. We regularly see new members join us after being misled and lied to about the consequences and risks of being circumcised. Several of the more prominent members were cut as adults (pressured by partners, girlfriends, doctors, etc.) and aft…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:01 PM
2

You absolutely do have that problem, you just don't realize it's a problem because it's the only state of your body you've ever known. You don't see it as a problem, you see it as normal, but that's because you have no idea what normal and healthy actually is. You've never felt it, you've never experienced it. To you, it's a figment of your imagination. To you, "better than this" doesn't exist. You've heard that it's better, understand that you can't have it, and then decide it's not worthwhile …
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:42 PM
6

I've dealt with this guy before, exact same old song and dance. He hasn't even bothered to at least try sharpening his rhetoric. The last time I engaged him I cited from medical text, how non-problematic pigeon-toeing is, how bracing has been almost entirely abandoned for more conservative and effective methods, and he just straight up ignored it and went on and on about how it's still applicable. The only relevant application of leg braces in this case is actually to undermine the value of circ…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:21 PM
1

I appreciate you taking the time to comment. While I do not empathize or agree with your position, I do understand where you're coming from. Before making by initial statement, I had already educated myself as to the foreskin's functions, and so I have a theoretical understanding of what the difference might be like (Whether that's still "unbridled" or not, I leave for you to decide!). Hey, that's great! I'm not here to debate your knowledge with you, as I said I'm only here to glean some perspe…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 11:43 PM
6

Are you Socrates your arguing style is impeccable. For you, I can be :)
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:51 PM
3

Hopefully you don't mind me dropping in on your comment. You've expressed some views that I find very curious, and are relevant to my work as an intactivist. Ultimately the more I understand circumcised men who don't care, the better I can tackle the problem of non-medical infant circumcision. As such I wanted to ask you a few questions about this; Sure, I might wonder what it would have been like to not be circumcised, and maybe it would have been better in some ways; but in the grand scheme of…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:36 PM
9

You question has been answered, as has your flawed line of reasoning you employed to pose the question in the first place. You just don't like / don't agree with the answer. That doesn't mean that one wasn't given.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:03 PM
1

I understand you man, much more than you probably believe to be honest. We shouldn't have to fight for our right to be whole, it's incredibly simple. Unfortunately we do, because life and the world isn't fair. Why do people have to fight to survive a life of poverty and crime? What did they do to deserve that hand in life? We all have our personal hardships in life. This is ours. How you face these challenges is what's most important.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:02 AM
6

Hey man, I know we've talked at length about restoration previously. I still stand firmly by my comments then. I've since started to experience the gliding mechanism during intercourse; the "holy grail" of restoration so to speak as this is the biggest thing you get back. I say this with absolute sincerity, it feels fucking unimaginably fantastic. You think that you have an idea of what was lost, but you truly do not. You don't have a clue, until you can experience this function and mechanism du…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:13 AM
4

List the red herrings for me please. Sure, here's a few choice selections; The world is an ugly place. - not relevant, the world being generally unpleasant has no bearing on this particular topic, as there are many unsavoury things fought against on a daily basis. Not a zero sum game. Parent can choose not to circumcise if they want. - This discussion is about the validity (or lack thereof) of that choice. Not about its existence He can't know what the pain will be like at that time, or he benef…
/r/MensRights18/05/15 09:45 PM
4

You really love to dodge, and deflect with a never ending stream of red herrings and just general bluster don't you? If parents want it they can just got to religious person that does it. It's better to allow doctors to perform. This isn't something new that no one knows how to do. So then the fact that someone will do something even if it's illegal thus means that there's no point making it illegal. Therefore there is no point to any laws whatsoever, because people will always do what what want…
/r/MensRights18/05/15 08:38 PM
4

Please outline how this details a hatred of women as a whole, simply on the basis of them being woken. I fail to see the connection in the top comment, which I assume is what you were pointing to.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 05:21 PM
3

You really have no concept of legality do you? I see I'm wasting my time having a discussion with a wall. If you want to put your fingers in your ears that's fine, but I'll waste my time no further.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:59 PM
4

Ah I see, the ole' "not read anything that was said, and go with my own preconceived notions and biases to support a completely false point" argument. Thanks for wasting mine and everyone's time with your nonsense. I very clearly stated circumcision is neither legal, nor is it strictly illegal either. This has been shown many times the world over both in this and many other academic critiques of the legislation surrounding the procedure. The paper linked, covers every aspect of the American cons…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:01 PM
2

Did you actually ready the paper posted? I'm going to presume not, since the entire point of it is to demonstrate how circumcision is not at all legal, and in fact only survives because it isn't explicitly illegal either (due to the level of cultural entrenchment it has achieved). As shown in Part A, above, boys have the absolute right under the common law and federal and state constitutional law, and under the criminal law, tort law, and human rights law, to be left genitally intact. The rules …
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:51 PM
1

I didnt mean to imply you had any sort of exceptional problems as a result of your circumcision, and am glad to hear you plan to keep and sons you may have intact.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 03:19 AM
2

Has more to do with a lack of personal confidence, than it does at having your sexual function and anatomy permanently modified in a negative way? Without either your desire nor your permission to be made that way? I'm not sure you understand the meaning of selective, nor the tremendous volume of arguments formulated against the validity of this outdated tradition.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:42 AM
1

Yeah, its an unfortunate side effect of the general ignorance of physicians. Their entire medical career they're told the only thing foreskins are good for is being cut-off, so as a result proper care and handling is a completely foreign concept for most of them. Just like the circumcision status of the father plays a significant role in the likelihood of a child to be circumcised, the circumcision status of your physician plays a huge role in their thoughts about the procedure, and their knowle…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:27 AM
5

Well maybe you are maybe you aren't. Just like any kind of disease, treating it (in this case circumcision to treat a pathological foreskin condition, assuming you actually had one) generally results in improved sexual satisfaction and function. This is obvious though, if you had a broken foreskin then of course fixing it would be better than dealing with that disease state no? The downside is that depending on when you were circumcised, there is a very good chance you didn't have to be at all. …
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:05 PM
6

Absolutely, and the fact people are so blind to it really shows the cultural influence and ignorance surrounding the procedure. One of the greatest reasons circumcision is so accepted is that people have absolutely no idea what the foreskin does, or is for. Medical and anatomy textbooks routinely display the circumcised penis as the natural configuration. Think about that and what it means for western culture for a moment. There is an entire cultural phenomenon dedicated to classifying the fores…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 10:30 PM
1

I'm glad to hear your experience went so well! We've got a long way to go, but attitudes are certainly changing, and will only continue to do so with education and information.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 10:27 PM
2

I'm not just interested in restoring my foreskin though. Is there any particular reason why not? Ultimately it is of course your choice, and you certainly can be happy either way. I wish there was a way to explain to people that chopping off undesirable parts of an infant who is incapable of consent, is just fucking wrong. There certainly is a way to explain it, and many people like myself do explain it often. The problem is that people are stubborn, it is very VERY strongly culturally engrained…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 06:45 PM
22

Hey man, I'm sorry to hear about your grief and discontent surrounding your circumcision. Its not at all abnormal or uncommon for men to become upset or feel a sense of violation / betrayal when they learn that they've been deceived for almost their entire lives. It can be tough to come to terms with the reality that an important and functional part of your body has been taken from you for no reason, and this is only compounded by the fact that it was the most private and personal part of your b…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 06:36 PM
1

He meant that the rate of circumcisions performed in adulthood is low. Ie. That intact men aren't running out to get snipped, and thus "I would get cut anyways even if I wasn't as a kid" is really specious reasoning at best.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:50 PM
1

Why did you get circumcised in the first place?
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:01 PM
2

Look, I'm as stringent an intactivist as they come, and I agree that his contentedness has no relevance in the greater scope of the debate. That said, he did not post smugly, he simply stated his position based on his life experience. He made no comment about the validity of the practice (and seemed to in fact state an opposition to it by admitting that it wasn't their right to cut him). Downvoting him because he didnt immediately ask for a thesis on why it's wrong, is just as useless as his com…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:56 AM
3

I don't know why you're being downvoted. I can honestly say that this is a perfectly reasonable post, even if I feel the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 11:20 PM
1

Well when you put it like that....
/r/MensRights21/04/15 11:09 PM
5

I disagree that this is supposed to be a safe space. However it does need to be a space of reasonable and even handed discussion. Not personal attacks and name calling (which is very obviously what the post is).
/r/MensRights21/04/15 10:57 PM
9

I would say if you truly want to make that choice, then that is you and your choice alone to make. However I will be honest in saying I don't know if it is a sound decision, as your parents only did what they thought was best. North American culture, and the medical professionals who advised them are far more to blame. We trust our doctors, theyre the ones who are supposed to comb medical studies, attend conventions and be up to date on present global opinion about important medical topics / dec…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:28 PM
5

I don't think this is one we'll win I disagree with you on every aspect of your argument. For starters, we're already winning. Circumcision rates have been steadily declining for decades, and continues to do so. It is increasingly criticized and identified as archaic and barbaric by the vast majority of the rest of the developed world, and only continues to gain focus and attention from medical and scientific establishments. With the internet, more and more parents have access to the wealth of i…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:00 AM
3

So what is your point? How does any of this have anything at all to do with the broader discussion and critique about the validity (or lack thereof) this practice?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:44 AM
1

Like the U.S., here in Canada it is region (province) specific. The prairies have the highest rates, followed by the maritimes iirc.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:32 AM
1

If you feel this strongly about the state of the MRM, why not take it into your own hands to help solve this problem, and form the community / movement you want to be a part of? I fail to see how standing on a soapbox before handing off responsibility is productive, or helpful. But hey, have it your way.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:59 PM
2

A scholarly article vetted by a breadth of peers that proves without any question that cutting off foreskin has absolutely no medical benefit, and causes lasting harm. There are literally hundreds of these kinds of papers and studies available, so obviously this isn't what you actually need to be convinced. There is always lasting harm caused by removal of a body part, that is uncontested. What is up for debate is whether the harm caused is justified by a net positive outcome elsewhere. North Am…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:00 PM
3

See? This is a much more even handed and reasoned response. I agree with exactly 0% of what you said, but this is truly [stating] an opinion, [without] bashing anyone Unlike your other post. I do believe that the extra skin is partially vestigial, and the only argument people have against that is that it contains nerve endings - but so does the appendix so that doesn't sway me much. It doesn't really matter what you "believe" here. The skin is not vestigial, and neither is the appendix (although…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 05:03 PM
2

What could you prefer? Crush, slice, tear? Those are perfectly accurate to the procedure, since some crush the foreskin tissue until it necrotizes, and some slice it away. All circumcision procedures must tear the foreskin from the glans penis first, as they are fused until puberty. I'm certainly happy to stick with those descriptors instead, as you're correct there isn't any actual "penis to cutting board butcher knife comes down" chopping that is done.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 04:54 PM
2

For the record, I didn't downvote you, and even if I had, it would be completely justified as your comment contributes nothing to the discussion. That is exactly what downvoting is for, to bury comments which contribute nothing to a healthy discussion. What you posted, was a handful of paragraphs masturbating your ego by showing how much of a rebel you are for Calling out the anti-circumcision stance of /r/mensrights, and for having an opinion that differs from that status quo. You only posted t…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 04:33 PM
3

The reason for my commenting is that I've seen and dealt with your exact comment hundreds of times, as a justification for circumcision as an ethically and medically sound procedure. In fact that is exactly why I was circumcised; "The doctor said its right and the best option" It is a classic example of medicine being tainted by culture, and exactly why healthy skepticism in a patient is good for the patient themselves, and also for the medical industry. If the medical professional cannot prove …
/r/MensRights18/03/15 03:42 PM
2

The circumcised penis is inferior to the intact penis (in the strictest of technical senses, obviously circumcised penises still "work" per se) and needs to be cleaned regardless of the fact they're circumcised (despite the truly asinine hygiene arguments). It's literally no different than the example given, and yet you rebutted it with what was actually a parallel to the argument you were trying to dispel, all while being completely oblivious to how you've made a point against yourself.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:59 PM
1

Because; It is tremendously socially and culturally normalized in the west, to the point where it is now an aspect of identity It has been retroactively justified with hundreds of different reasons throughout the course of history (for example, it was previously thought to cure polio) It is a procedure which generates a fair amount of money being performed. If you're thinking that these are less than stellar reasons, you're correct.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:42 PM
2

Oh, how brave of you to stand up for your love of cutting parts off of dicks. I applaud you for at the very least being honest about your irrationalities.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:39 PM
5

Do you have any idea how often doctors are wrong? Having the letters MD in front of your name doesn't mean you have encyclopedia scientific knowledge about the human body. It means you worked hard, studied in college, then past med school by studying instead of partying. I'm not saying ALL doctors are wrong, I'm saying all doctors are wrong some of the time because they're human, and it is dangerous to just hand over authority like that without any criticism from yourself.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:34 PM
3

Which are inferior to feet and you would have to clean anyway. The irony of your own comment went right over your head didn't it?
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:29 PM
6

Actually it hurts a lot of people, particularly those who 1. Don't want it, and 2. Who suffer complications from it. Do you think those people (with significant complications) just got what they deserved when they had their penis destroyed at 24 hours old just because you happened to be fine? Or is this "no one" you're talking about reserved only for people you agree with?
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:25 PM
5

I dont want to really comment either way, because just as youve said I'm not a doctor, but more importantly I am not privy to the medical information that might allow me to make such a call. shouldn't there have been enough urinary pressure to solve the issue by now? Not necessarily. Its different for all boys, and as long as flow of urine isnt obstructed to the point that it isn't possible to urinate without pain / discomfort, then it is my understanding it is not pathological.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 12:51 AM
7

At a young age before de adhesion actually begins, that is exactly what's supposed to happen. The foreskin has a pinpoint opening, and because of the prepuital sphincter it inst uncommon for slight ballooning of urine to occur before enough pressure is built to actually pass through the opening. Inconvenient and messy? For sure. Pathological foreskin condition? Not at all.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 12:43 AM
0

Extreme sense of personal grievance over circumcision seems to be a common theme in the MRM's most extreme. So yet again, why is your personal opinion relevant to what other people feel about what was done to their bodies? Since when are you the arbiter of what is an appropriate response to bodily autonomy violations? As for side effects, people who have never not been cut claim they lost sensation or are premature ejaculators or delayed ejaculators or any number of things based off of being cut…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:44 AM
2

I don't necessarily think the diagnosis is disingenuous, so much as I think the diagnosis is ignorant and incorrect. Doctors (especially North American ones) tend to be laughably misinformed about the foreskin, and the pathological conditions associated with it. Look at the above citation, in England & West Australia its suspected that phimosis is incorrectly overdiagnosed ~7x more often than it need be. Imagine how often the circumcision happy physicians in North America might recommend circumc…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 12:47 AM
16

Phimosis cannot be diagnosed at the age of 4, as the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans penis until the onset of puberty. Pathological Phimosis doesn't actually exist at that age, as phimosis is the natural configuration of the foreskin until it is supposed to be able to retract. I'd suggest learning a bit more about this topic, as you're simply spreading very commonly touted misinformation. “Phimosis” is inability to withdraw the narrowed penile foreskin or prepuce behindthe glans penis […
/r/MensRights07/03/15 09:04 PM
3

Plenty of them claim serious sexual side effects already, despite lacking personal evidence on the topic. Plenty of them do experience severe sexual side effects, who are you to say that they don't? Especially considering that it is a very documented fact. This doesn't even begin to touch the issue of having your bodily autonomy violated and how psychologically distressing this (or any other basic human rights violation, regardless of time frame) can be for some people. I do not advocate for peo…
/r/MensRights05/03/15 10:42 PM
5

Perhaps it's because we literally are, missing something.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 10:10 PM
0

ou want to create sympathy for male babies, not get people thinking about the hacked-up corpses of female genocide victims. That is not at all the point of utilizing such an analogy. I do not think it is one that should be applied de facto to every circumcision debate, but it serves to highlight and underline the inanity and double standard of supporting circumcision on prophylactic, cosmetic, or cultural grounds. Whether to employ this analogy or not is up to the discretion of the person in the…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 05:51 PM
4

The issue is not that circumcision does not affect the primary function of the penis (it does of course), it's that the general populace is not nearly informed enough about penile anatomy and physiology to recognize the affects. Yes mastectomies is more dramatic, but I think this is a sound parallel. Breastfeeding while beneficial, is not necessary. We have formula, to replace the nourishment factor, and medicine (vaccines especially) to confer the immune system benefits. Cosmetically women coul…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 05:14 AM
2

Fair enough, obviously I can only speak to my own experiences.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 03:34 AM
1

I can't speak for everyone, but between me and my two best friends, no thanks to everything you just said. We'll all keep our peckers and gladly so. I personally have never met a man to say otherwise (although gender roles would definitely suppress people from admitting it) so I don't think mtf transsexuals are a good sample pool for such speculation. In the same way Id say ftm transsexuals are a bad sample pool to gauge prominence of penis envy.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 04:29 PM
2

But is ignorance of how important the foreskin really so uncommon? Unfortunately, it absolutely is so common. Even in university medical textbooks in North America, the default depiction of the penis is a circumcised one. Little to no information is provided for the functions and purposes of the foreskin. Most doctors know little to nothing about it, which is the product of decades of routine circumcision being the norm in this culture. Why do we have to compare it to girls to even get the emoti…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 01:08 AM
1

correct me if im wrong, but if you wanted to equate them anatomically isn't removing the foreskin the exact same as removing the clitoral hood? I know this is a couple days old but I stumbled on your post and figured I'd answer your edit. Basically, no, they are not "anatomically equivalent". This is a very common misunderstanding in the circumcision debate that I see over and over on both sides of the fence. The genitalia of males and females are not analogous but rather, homologous structures.…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:51 PM
3

You've really hit the nail on the head. "Cat and mouse game" is exactly how Id describe my interactions with the above poster, as I was forced to rehash, reiterate and generally revisit the same point multiple times over and over, while he simply dodged and deflected those replies asking repeatedly where my argument was. You had much more patience than I however. At the very least it's an interesting case study to see the same person in this position over and over, and react the same way every t…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 12:08 AM
6

I honestly have no idea why people even entertain this guy with discussion anymore. This is the 3rd or 4th time now I've seen this happen, where he starts a discussion, eventually flat out refuses to address the points presented (all while exclaiming no refutations were actually given), and then just stops responding when every last piece of his shit in silk robed arguments are pulled out into the open and directly answered. I'm STILL waiting on a response to my 15k character submission, as are …
/r/MensRights29/01/15 04:34 PM
2

The american HIV rate isn't just higher than that seen in Europe, it's higher than any other developed nation period, and has been for a long time. But that has nothing to do with the general lack of a responsible sex education curriculum, and access to protection for young people becoming sexually active; we just need to circumcise the guys who slipped through the cracks. /s
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:20 PM
2

You used an absolutely terrible example. I agree with what /u/davidbyron2 has said above completely. If you had posted this topic, and argued your points as that "I believe the sex discrimination faced by gay men - as men - across a number of issues, needs to be highlighted a lot more by MRAs." instead of what you did, we (and others) would be having a very different conversation with you. That is a very different position, than "gay issues need to be forefront in the MRM".
/r/MensRights23/01/15 07:11 PM
3

And those are perfect examples of areas of overlap where effort on the part of the MRM is justified as being in line with its purposes. Those are problems which can be shown to be caused by the status of being a man, and which also happen to include a component of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I've not said anything counter to this.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 05:27 PM
3

I'm not arguing that there aren't. Those are good examples of things where the MRM should and often does have a focus. I don't see a problem with that when gay issues are overlapped with mens issues in the slightest.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 05:21 PM
3

Can you prove that this is due to them being men, and not simply because they're gay? For example the religions of those regions could very easily believe that lesbian sexual relations are godly in nature, and that gay sexual relations are hallmarks of the devil. This isn't a sign it's because they're men, although it happens to be necessary (obvious can't have gay sex without being a man). It does not affect all men, only gay men. This doesn't say anything about gay rights as a whole, (which yo…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 04:11 PM
2

Not relevant. What needs to be proven is that gay men are disproportionately victims of hate crimes because they're men. This only proves that being gay is less accepted than being a lesbian is. Maybe that is because they're men, but this paper certainly does not provide that causative link. Men are disproportionately victims of violence already, that is a well understood and agreed upon MRM focus. That includes gay men and the violence they see by default. What you haven't proven and what it do…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:53 PM
3

Both are issues which concern men This is not the defining characteristic of it being a men's rights issue. Being causatively linked to being a man is. Co-opting movements for inclusionary purposes is not effective. See feminism for a immediately relevant example. How included do trans people feel within that group? You fail to understand, that what you're asking for is already the case. Many MRAs are also pro-gay rights, and involved in helping solve those issues. There is an overlap that makes…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:46 PM
3

You seem to think this is a zero sum game. You can both support gay rights specifically, and also focus on men's rights specifically. It is far more effective to separate the two, in order to maintain the exact kind of focus you're talking about and asking for. Which is exactly the case; they're separate groups, with a huge overlap in membership and support. They do not need to be merged, and that would only unnecessarily complicate and muddy both groups respective foci.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:35 PM
5

Yes, but that is not what's being argued, and you seem to be purposefully ignoring that. Men's rights is focused on issues which disproportionately affect men because they're men. Do bisexual, and lesbian, transgendered, genderqueer, etc people not see discrimination? You can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:29 PM
2

No, you're not, and you're not the first person to bring it up in a thread like this either. If you don't want to receive down votes for your comment you could always just not shitpost. Here are a couple alternative comments you could've made; "I personally am happy with my circumcision. Can someone explain to me why others aren't? I don't really understand" "As someone who doesn't have any issue with their circumcision, the uproar over this issue doesn't make sense to me." See the difference? T…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:10 PM
3

That's fair enough to be perfectly honest.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:33 PM
9

For someone whom is "tired of this argument and doesn't want to get into a huge debate", you've certainly been spending a lot of time in these threads doing exactly that.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 06:28 PM
4

I wouldn't waste my time. There are two entire threads you can look at to see exactly how your arguments will be handled by this poster. If you're lucky you might even get some nasty PMs in the end as some allege to have received.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 02:42 PM
1

I should mention that your confusion may be one of semantics. When we say HIV prevention, no one is talking about true prevention. It's meant in the most common of medical senses as seen in that report, HIV acquisition risk reduction, and in this case one that is quite significant in magnitude. It is referring to HIV prevention strategy, in which, acquisition risk reduction is a large piece. This is not where the honesty and transparency of the CDC / AAP come into question. Where it is being cri…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:35 PM
1

Sure, not a problem. It's the research docket that was open for public review and comment until yesterday. Background, Methods, and Synthesis of Scientific Information Used to Inform the "Recommendations for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV infection, STIs, and other Health Outcomes.". If that link doesn't work, message me again and once I'm on campus I can edit it. I'm on mobile right now, but have my MacBook with me for classe…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:12 PM
5

Nope. HIV prevention is cornerstone to the AAP and CDCs reports. I read the CDCSs draft yesterday, it's about 40 pages long (15 or so at the end are just citations/bibliography for a total of ~60) and the first 20 pages investigate the HIV benefit. There's a single paragraph on sexual function and sensitivity, followed by a few more pages of HIV info, followed by a few other STI's. The AAPs 2012 task force report reads basically identically, since the CDC basically just parroted their report mor…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:03 PM
5

Add me to the list of men circumcised, whom wishes they weren't. Especially on reddit, we aren't that hard to find. We don't risk public humilation, shaming and derision by expressing our feelings here. Out in person, the opposite tends to be the reality. To answer the question you posed to another user; Okay.. why would you prefer to be uncut? (that unfortunately wasn't answered), here are the three largest reasons; First and foremost, it is really upsetting to think that a part of my body, of …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:36 AM
4

Honestly, it doesn't seem like a troll at all. His thinking is right in line with your average person whom is pro-circumcision. Appeal to parental authority? Check Refusal to look at any kind of evidence that doesn't stem from the CDC or AAPs task force statements? Check Inability (or refusal) to make an argument robust to even the most modest of critiques, without reframing the debate as a matter of opinion? Check Refusal to refute counter-points with any kind of factual basis, outside of that …
/r/MensRights14/01/15 09:19 PM
2

You would do well to stick to your own battles, instead of co-opting others as if it's some kind of tangible defense from your owned flawed arguments. Spoiler alert: it isn't. Edit: Want to know the funniest part of you standing behind my comment as if it supports your position? The fact that the history of study into vaccination as a cause of autism, follows exactly the same course of the history of studying circumcision as a method of HIV prevention. It was asserted (during the infamous Africa…
/r/MensRights14/01/15 08:15 PM
3

How so? Who is the one here refusing to defend their assertions, or back them up with any kind of evidence? I've already cited one paper, and am prepared to cite every one of my statements from multiple different sources. Can you say the same? Stop deflecting, and state your intentions. Either you'll engage or you won't, but your accusations of my being unreasonable (while not even explaining how you arrived at that conclusion), are incredibly dishonest and disingenuous of you.
/r/MensRights14/01/15 08:13 PM
2

This is simply not true. The assertion that there is a link between autism and vaccinations has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked as false. After the initial doctored/fraudulent study, over a decade of research went into exploring that potential correlation and not a single other researcher was able to substantiate the claim. It was a waste of a lot of time, a lot of money, and still today a major problem as people refuse to accept that the entire thing was made up by a doctor seeking to…
/r/MensRights14/01/15 07:09 PM
2

If you want to have a discussion, myself and several other users here can certainly give you one. I doubt however that you have any interest at all in good faith debate, since you've simply ignored everything that didn't immediately agree with you. You say that you're not claiming us to be wrong as the point of your posting, and yet here you've written a multi-paragraph speech to the contrary, outlining exactly how you think we're wrong. Troubling indeed. You mention the expertise of the CDC. I …
/r/MensRights14/01/15 06:31 PM
5

There are thousands of nerve endings in ALL skin No there aren't. If you truly believe this, then find me a citation to prove it. You won't be able to, and I suspect that instead of trying, you'll simply say "I don't care about this issue enough to waste my time looking". If you don't care enough to look, than please refrain from opening your mouth to express fallacious assertions. You might as well be saying the sky is blue because the government put dye in the air. to suggest that circumcision…
/r/MensRights14/01/15 02:47 PM
3

Uhh as of right now the thread has like 600 upvotes and 300 comments. Not sure what you're on about Edit: and by 300 I mean I didn't read the number properly and it has 50. My bad!
/r/MensRights13/01/15 01:59 PM
3

You've literally responded with an entire post of deflection from any of my arguments. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but seeing how poorly you handled both this and the previous thread, I really am not. You may continue to accuse me of being unable to answer your objections if you'd wish, but yet again you don't have a single source to support your claims. At best you are a master of "because I said so". Every one of your rebuttals above, simply comes from omitting portions of my post, or bl…
/r/MensRights13/01/15 03:49 AM
3

Contd. I've brought leg braces as an example of a procedure that is irreversible, medical, causes a lot of pain, can be put off until later in life, and the infant cannot consent. I've seen the arguments from your personal anecdote in this regard elsewhere. I've looked into it myself (as a treatment for intoeing), and found that all available medical literature aligns as expected with the stance I've espoused. Intoeing, while cosmetically undesirable, is low risk, and generally corrects itself w…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 08:16 PM
3

I was beginning to think you'd forgotten about me. I have a problem with this because it's not explaining that there is a medical consensus, it's telling me to ignore where there isn't a medical consensus. Burden of proof / special pleading. Absolute agreement beyond all doubt amongst all medical professionals everywhere, does not generally happen except in the presence of irrefutable and complete evidence (something usually unavailable due to personal / natural variation). I am not asking you t…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 08:16 PM
3

I appreciate the kind words and support in the fight against this practice. Even 'sometimes' activists such as yourself help progress our cause, and that in and of itself is commendable. Cheers!
/r/MensRights07/01/15 06:59 PM
2

Not a problem. A long self post often begets a long response, and generally speaking I already tend to be somewhat lengthy in my writing. Take your time. I should mention a couple things, since you haven't yet gone through it all. My tone and language you'll find to be fairly forward. 'Strongly worded' you might call it. Know that this isn't personally directed at you at all, it's simply how I argue / debate. I did not address 100% of the arguments you put forth in your OP. Instead I tackled wha…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 02:06 PM
14

I've been back and forth on whether I should respond to this topic dozens of times since it's been posted. I'm a very active and vocal intactivist here in r/mr and also across reddit. I wouldn't say I'm the most active, nor the most vocal, but I think its fair of me to say that people might recognize me and some of the posts I've made on this topic. I am hesitant to respond because this is a VERY large post, and there are a number of facets to address. Intactivism as a circumcised man, is extrem…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 07:09 AM
3

Halved is a relative term. For all we know, intact men could have a .4% chance of infection while cut men have a .2% chance. It's funny you mention this, because that's basically exactly the situation at hand. The original studies concluded (iirc) 1.2% in intact men, and 0.6% in circumcised men for HIV transmission rates
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:30 PM
13

at what point do you think medical treatment crosses the line then? At the point established by hundreds of other medical procedures and modern medical standards seen across the globe; When it becomes immediately and directly necessary to protect the life of the individual, or when options have been exhausted such that it is the most efficacious and least damaging option to treat a disease. are the vaccines necessary? Vaccines have an irrefutable and documented medical benefit, which cannot be g…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 11:35 PM
2

Not a problem. Honestly it's very difficult to find concrete numbers in regards to FGM incidence by type. I've only found a few studies in all my searching which cover it, the WHO being one of them.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 07:11 PM
3

Well, thanks for your time. I'll go back and look further into some of the things you mentioned and pm you any further questions I may have. Thanks again
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:19 AM
3

I appreciate you taking the time to put together such a thought out response. Unfortunately, I don't really find personally that you've answered, well, any of my questions. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you. With regards to cultural preferences, this includes both religious and non-religious considerations that the family will have to discuss amongst themselves. In regards to culture, do you have any other examples in which there is a destruction/excision of healthy tissue performed solely …
/r/MensRights12/11/14 01:02 AM
5

How do you reconcile what you've just espoused with the views held by the medical professionals of nearly every other developed nation? Why is prevention of HIV and other STI's relevant to a minor, when safe sex practices are both more efficacious, lower cost, lower risk, and less invasive to the individual? How do you justify performing a non-therapeutic, surgical procedure on someone? Can you list any other examples in modern medical practice that are surgical in nature, less effective than ot…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:04 PM
1

Is your only defense here seriously to run in circles and deflect? Prove its better. Prove there is something about circumcision that is exclusive to circumcision, that falls in line with standard modern medical practice and doesn't cause more harm than it does help (even if that harm and help are relatively minor). That's how we generally determine something is "better" no? It must demonstrate benefits not seen elsewhere, or demonstrate utility with lower risk, lower cost, and higher efficacy t…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 07:28 PM
2

Any incidence > 0% is too much of course. Unfortunately the reality is far from perfect for either sex.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 04:46 AM
10

From the WHO The type of procedure performed also varies, mainly with ethnicity. Current estimates indicate that around 90% of female genital mutilation cases include Types I or II and cases where girls’ genitals were "nicked" but no flesh removed (Type IV), and about 10% are Type III (Yoder and Khan, 2007).
/r/MensRights11/11/14 02:17 AM
5

Not a problem, I don't mind answering any questions about restoration. The long and thick of it is (no pun intended), that you may create for yourself a functional foreskin analog, by leveraging our body's adaptability. Through tension induced tissue expansion you can take the inner and outer foreskin remnants you have left, and "stretch" them to fully cover your penis as it would be if you were left intact. I put stretch in quotes because you aren't actually stretching anything. Skin/tissue whi…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 10:29 PM
9

Not a problem, I appreciate your willingness to hear me out. "I want my son to be like me, and since nothing bad came from it, then I'm all for it." This is exactly what the most difficult aspect is. Most circumcised men do not suffer what they would describe to be adverse affects of their circumcision. They have what they consider satisfactory sex lives. I know I certainly felt that way for a long time. It wasn't until I began restoring my foreskin (kind of a misnomer, as its not a true regener…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 08:25 PM
13

"Circumcision is bad and you should feel bad that you have a mutilated penis." That is not the overall sentiment at all, nor should it be (although certainly some individuals prefer to tackle this issue from a position as tactless as the one you've outlined). To really understand this debate and why it sees constant resurgence in and around r/mr, you're going to have to take a step back and remove yourself personally from the discussion. Yes you're circumcised, but you're going to have to shelf …
/r/MensRights10/11/14 07:59 PM
6

It is not at all a hard and fast number. That is a very extreme guess, that some circumcised men certainly fall into. Best scientific guesses place loss of touch perception/sensitivity due to circumcising in the range of about 30-80% in most cases. I'd say generally most men fall closer to 30-50%, with extremely tight cuts falling closer and closer to 80%.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 05:45 PM
16

UTI incidence is already tremendously low with males, and only decreases as they age. Females see UTIs at rates nearly 10 times that of boys, yet it would not be a valid reason to circumcise a female (and rightfully so). HIV is not a disease an infant would contract, nor is it a disease that is significantly impacted by circumcision. Safe sex practices are the only way to prevent contracting HIV, something only further solidified by the US having one of the highest rates of HIV infected individu…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 05:42 PM
11

This is what they've always suggested. If you wait the boy might try to resist and defend the right to his own body.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 08:36 PM
1

Have you ever thought perhaps about the reasons why Canada doesn't dump Millions into defending itself? It has a bit to do with the fact that we don't need to. You sound like Ben Stein with statements like that.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 11:34 PM
3

Of course it saddens you, why wouldn't it? I understand greatly how you feel, so I hope it doesnt seem like I am diminishing or dismissing your feelings on the topic. The unfortunate reality however is that what's gone is gone. There is no use holding out hope or desire for something you cannot have. It serves us equally well to desire deep in our being the power to fly or some other such fantasy; it simply won't happen. The sooner you can actively work to move away from that desire and longing …
/r/MensRights24/10/14 06:56 PM
6

Above the circumcision scar and including your glans, all of that skin isn't actually skin; it's mucosal membrane tissue. This is the same kind of tissue that the internal walls of the vagina are made of, underneath your eyelids, and inside your cheeks to name a few. This tissue is designed to be internal, it is not supposed to be exposed to air 24/7. Think how dry your cheeks would get if you kept your mouth wide open for 15 minutes straight. Now apply 20+ years. Restoring gives your favorite m…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:34 AM
2

It varies from person to person. I'm cut myself, but was cut moderately loose so I had enough slack already to not need lubricants. That said it's much better when your "lube" is more erogenous tissue and skin.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:22 AM
3

Even still, restoration will provide you benefits far beyond what you think if you can stick with it long enough to see some growth. I started because I was angry, and I continue because I've been astounded with the results. My dick feels better than I ever imagined it could, and can't wait to see what it's like when I'm completely finished. Yeah it's not perfect, but it is a very good option to make the best of a bad situation. The time is passing you by anyways, and your sensitivity/function i…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:19 AM
3

/r/Intactivists has plenty of good information/articles from various publications available. I'd check around there first and foremost
/r/MensRights18/10/14 12:54 AM
2

There is a world of difference between making moral and ethical choices based on ideological speculation coupled to a "hand-wavey" (borderline metaphysical) sense of potential personhood, and inflicting real world concrete harm with consequence on a person whom already exists. The problem with the "potential person" paradigm is simple. Where do you draw the line between what "potential" is accepted and worth protecting, and which "potential" is rejected? The answer? You can't. It's entirely subj…
/r/MensRights17/10/14 10:51 PM
2

This question doesn't really deserve an answer but i'll bite. No, I'm not against abortion when the timeline of pregnancy warrants it.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 05:10 PM
17

The issue is that you cannot say how a child will feel about it when they grow up. I'm circumcised, and I hate it. I think intact looks much better, to address it from an aesthetic standpoint. I hate the someone cut off a perfectly healthy part of my body before I was able to voice my opinion about it, to address it from a personal violation standpoint. I hate that my sexual function and experience has been altered, to fit other people's narratives of what I should be allowed to experience. Bein…
/r/MensRights17/10/14 12:48 AM
5

Give it time. Not so long ago homosexual and interracial marriage, FGM, and woman's voting rights were talked about and treated the exact same way you treat this. Generations give way, and despite best efforts to exercise their grip on archaic and antiquated traditions, objective scientific inquiry eventually takes over, as it is the only reproducible truth we know. The beginnings of change have already been demonstrated across many parts of North America, it's simply a war of attrition.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 08:38 PM
2

Also, removing foreskin is not comparable to removing a clitoris because that would be more comparable to removing the entire head of the penis. No, it actually wouldn't be, because they are not analogous structures. This is a common misconception in the entire MGM vs. FGM comparison, so I don't fault you for being uninformed on that aspect. The glans clitoris and the glans penis are homologous structures. Homologous structures (in the context of anatomy here) arise from the same precursor tissu…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 11:46 PM
3

If that seriously constitutes being mean, I'm honestly curious how you managed to function in the adult world. Perhaps you arent an adult?
/r/MensRights07/08/14 11:46 PM
3

Lots of other good comment in here to get you started, so I won't rehash what's already been said. I'd recommend checking out /r/intactivists for more information also. What I've found to be one of the single most effective arguments is to address the core route through which circumcision goes against all known medical standards. In other words, "The question is not, 'does circumcision prevent disease', the question is 'what is the most effective method of disease prevention?'". As it turns out,…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:27 PM
3

And how FGM is still strictly a religious tradition. This actually isnt entirely true. While often FGM is perpetuated by religious and cultural motives, many people in Africa parrot the exact same justifications as North Americans about male circumcisions "It's healthier. It's cleaner and more sanitary. It increases sexual pleasure (for the male), and it is more attractive" It's fairly well documented that while FGM victims do see elevated sexual dysfunction and issues (just as circumcised men d…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:59 PM
6

Because FGM has become entirely synonymous in the North American vernacular with "infibulation/the most severe and horrific forms of female genital cutting", while the Male version, MGM, is synonymous with "Routine Infant Circumcision". Its a problem created by people using the common everyday meanings of the terminology, instead of uniform and clear cut definitions.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:53 PM
3

Signed. What a horrific circumstance to find yourself in.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 11:42 PM
1

However, this does illustrate (in multiple ways) how society cares more about women than men. Yes it does. But that is not what the post was framed as. The post was framed in such a way as to accuse this organization of discrimination, on the basis of their failure to utilize their (probably limited) resources in a fight which honestly, would go nowhere This shelter for FGM victims does not detract from the fight against MGM, and at best it highlights how little MGM is considered. That is all. I…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:19 PM
7

That's not the point. The point is that the titling of this post is purposefully inflammatory when it needn't be. Creating a space for aid of FGM victims, does not necessitate a push for legislation against MGM. I am as big of an intactivist as they come, you're preaching to the choir here. If you'd like to peruse my commenting history you'll see that just about the only thing I do comment on, is circumcision and why it should be stopped. So let's be realistic for a second here and see this post…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:00 PM
6

While I don't agree with any form of circumcision it has a much more drastic effect on a woman than a man. Strawman. You need to specify FGM and MGM typing before you can make these arguments. Standard male circumcision vs infibulation? = women more heavily damaged. Standard male circumcision vs bloodletting/pinpricking? = men more heavily damaged. I do agree it is quite a leap OP has tried to draw, though, and one which really serves nobody.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:48 PM
3

Not really. The cultural circumstances surrounding them, (when controlling for things like region, religious belief, and societal expectation) are identical and uniform across the board. People cut the genitals of others for all the same reasons, regardless of sex. The one exception to this is perhaps in sub-Saharan Africa where the most extreme forms of FGM are still performed, but even still, women there parrot the same justifications we see western men regurgitate about their circumcisions. Y…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:42 PM
3

Sensitivity is more complex and multifaceted than this. A lot of research shows circumcised men see BOTH elevated incidence of premature ejaculation and delayed ejaculation. It is entirely dependent on the nature of ones circumcision. The anatomy of the foreskin allows for greater sensory tactile feedback, enabling stronger control of the ejaculatory reflex/orgasm. Lacking that anatomy is like driving a car without power steering. Maybe you'll over correct in a turn, maybe you'll under correct, …
/r/MensRights03/05/14 06:38 PM
1

Not a problem. If I could offer one piece of advice, it's to remain consistent. Making sure to do some tugging every day shows the best results, even if you reduce the amount of tugging that is actually being done. Best of luck, and if there are any other questions feel free to ask. Cheers!
/r/MensRights30/04/14 10:03 PM
2

I have a TLC-X and also use semi regular manual methods. I aim to wear my tugger at least 8 hours a day every day. I'm coming up on my 2 year anniversary in September, and I expect to be completed in about another year or 2 assuming I can stay consistent. I fell out of the habit of wearing my tugger for the past 5 months roughly, (due to life circumstances and a broken collarbone) but am back in the swing of things now. Progress is very slow (started at about CI 2.5, now I'm solidly in CI 4). I'…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 09:45 PM
3

I'm not intact, but I am a significant portion of the way through restoring my foreskin, and am an active intactivist. Dick jokes aside I would consider myself well versed in the anatomy and physiology of the intact penis, much more so than most intact people themselves are. I imagine despite how tightly it seems you were cut, when you're flaccid you can move your skin around a bit no? Skin is not firmly attached to the underlying structures. Take for example the back of your hand. If you use a …
/r/MensRights30/04/14 08:07 PM
3

I personally am aware, but didn't want to get too far into it for the sake of simplicity in this particular case. Thanks for expanding in more detail though!
/r/MensRights30/04/14 04:47 AM
5

Psychologically, and emotionally there are a couple options. There are quite a few restoration communities around which make a great avenue to get your thoughts and feelings out in a safe way, without the fear of being chastised, berated or shamed for feeling that way. Unfortunately, legally there is (next to) nothing you can do. Your parents signed a consent form, and along with that consent to circumcise you, came a waiver of any legal ground you might have to pursue action. You may find mysel…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 03:50 AM
20

Keratinized is the word you're looking for for future reference. It refers to keratin, the tough protein which is produced to cover the glans. Keratin is also the main protein component in nails, hair, and hooves to give some examples of where it normally belongs.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 03:44 AM
12

Yup it was. The OP said it was taken down once, then I saw the thread on my frontpage (As the OP reposted it), and its now been taken down a second time in less than 24 hours. The only way to view it is by direct link. I think this is the 3rd thread in less than a week to be removed from visibility, for being directly or indirectly related to the MRM. The 2nd I can personally confirm at any rate.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:09 AM
3

Ahh I see, well thanks for clearing that up for me :P I'm in the middle of final exam prep. Got regulatory biochemistry on the brain over everything else -_-;
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:34 PM
8

I understand that, however I fail to see the relevance of /u/Seand0r's reply to my comment. I don't even know where the quoted text comes from s: Thats not to say I disagree with the sentiments that Seand0r has expressed, just that I don't know why it was delivered as a reply to my own comment is all.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:22 PM
11

Sorry, I'm really confused at to why you replied to me here?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:08 PM
66

This is really sad and disappointing to hear. I spent a good amount of time in that thread answering questions about restoration, and how it works, so as to help inform people and perhaps aid some men's transition into taking it up for themselves. I was careful to avoid touching the topic of circumcision at all, outside of addressing physiological changes that are reversed by restoration. There was a lot of genuine curiosity and honest discourse from outsiders looking in. This was a very good op…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 05:44 PM
2

Love you too bae <3
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:53 PM
4

I think not being forced into a useless and unethical surgical procedure sounds better actually. Vaccination confers medical health benefits at rates which are orders of magnitude more efficacious than circumcision. Vaccination also confers benefits which are only able to be achieved through vaccination. Circumcision has almost none of that (with the exception of cancer risk reduction, in what is already a tremendously rare cancer). There are very real life threatening consequences to forgoing v…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 08:34 PM
9

While I get what you're saying, it's really only a small piece of the story. Both the WHO and CDC indicate that circumcision may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with a female partner.[4][6] The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should never replace known methods of HIV prevention.[5] A lot of the push for circumcision in africa t…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:19 PM
4

Be careful of the strawman you're coming dangerously close to erecting instead of an actual argument. edit: typoz
/r/MensRights05/03/14 04:46 PM
18

Trust me, I'm well aware of the kinds of responses trying to support circumcision. I've spent a lot of time the past couple years combating every excuse and justification in the book. Some people simply do not care about logic, or reason and are so married to an idea they would rather turn a blind eye and harm their sons, than face the truth of the matter.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 04:44 PM
38

Lots of people are anti circumcision and fight against it. I myself am one of such people. You can find more over at /r/intactivists The practice is largely driven by a for profit medical paradigm, cultural Indoctrination, ignorance about male sexual anatomy and function, and wide shaming tactics applied to those who go against it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 04:11 PM
1

Even if there were (which I don't think there are), who cares? Western obsession with denying and demonizing anything sexual is ridiculous. I'd rather my kids listen to a bunch of adults talk about something they will almost guaranteed do in their life (masturbate) over seeing a guys head get own off.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 02:19 PM
0

Lmao at this whole thread. Down vote and move along folks, nothin to see here.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 02:15 PM
3

In my experience as a vocal intactivist, the single biggest hurdle I've come across and notice consistently is the lack of education, and staggeringly huge levels of ignorance about the foreskin, and male sexual anatomy in general. I mean think about it. Textbooks for medical/anatomy students, come with the circumcised penis as the default. Take a second to truly absorb how ludicrous that is, and reflect on how this standard mirrors western perception about the foreskin (not) being a functioning…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 10:32 PM
1

Money Ignorance across the general populus about sexual health in general Cultural conditioning which views the foreskin as "excess" and something entirely separate from the penis Cultural conditioning which says the foreskin is disgusting, and undesireable. Sancitity of Religious belief and ritual Overall disposability of men That about sums it up I think.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 12:57 AM
4

There is nothing to feel proud about. It is one thing, and certainly encouraged to be okay with, comfortable with, and happy with your body. I urge every circumcised man to work towards and maintain that stance. However, how you feel about your circumcision, means absolutely nothing in the overarching debate about it's (RIC) validity and place in modern medicine. That is the point that every circumcised man who doesn't hate being cut, seems unable to grasp, and that is constantly being reiterate…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 09:44 PM
1

Sometimes the truth hurts, and reality holds cards that are less than a royal flush for us. That doesn't mean however that we cannot still be happy. Optimism is a choice. If you find yourself really concerned with your sensitivity, or just in general are unhappy about your circumcision, look into restoration. Seriously. I'm not going to be flippant about it and say its a cake walk, because its a decent amount of daily work. But the end result is on an entirely different plane of existence from t…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:51 PM
1

Not necesarily. I agree that this infographic is more or less useless, because it fails to include any information about rates of these crimes and the sentencing handed down across equivalent/similar circumstances. This needs to be paired with more information to be really meaningful to any degree
/r/MensRights21/12/13 01:07 AM
12

Not always. It's fairly well documented that some infants are silent during their circumcisions, because of what is suspected to effectively be shock-response due to the tremendous pain associated with the procedure. Not that that is to say it shouldn't be banned, but rather that it's actually a bit more grim than it initially seems by saying that all boys cry.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 06:16 AM
7

He's a bit of an extreme case, but none of that is particularly difficult to find documentation or support for in terms of citation. That's of course not to say these are typical of circumcisions, but rather that they do see a positive correlation with circumcision quite often, and in significant magnitudes.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:54 AM
8

have college educations and degrees in the field and related fields? This is more or less an appeal to authority. I agree completely that Mythandros was over the line in trying to imply that most feminists are stupid, but that's not really what is being discussed. Just because you have a degree, or certificate from what should be a reputable institution, authority, or organization, does not mean that that organization was right. There is no intrinsic value or truth in the teachings of feminism, …
/r/MensRights12/11/13 01:17 AM
1

I just took issue with the idea that it's near impossible for me to have sexual ability Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about in the circumcision debate says this. What is actually being said, is that circumcision significantly reduces penile function, both in terms of sexual intercourse, as well as in terms of ability to perceive touch and pleasure response. apparently I have no feeling in my glans (a fact I can personally counter). First of all, your personal anecdote means noth…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:31 PM
1

I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say with this. I didn't say anything about the glans whatsoever in my initial post. I didn't say that the shaft skin has no sensitivity at all, only that the shaft skin is significantly less sensitive than the foreskin. I don't think you really know anything about penile anatomy nor physiology, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible. It's difficult to decipher what exactly the point of this post was is all. The underside of the shaft …
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:04 PM
5

More or less actually yes. It's (the foreskin) fused to the glans for many years after birth, in the same ways your nail is fused to the nail bed. The most common method to separate them is to take a pair of foresceps, insert the "needle nose" end into the prepuital opening forcing it between the glans and foreskin, open them inside (like scissors) prying apart everything in the range of the foresceps, and "run" the tool around the surface of the glans, literally tearing the two surfaces apart. …
/r/MensRights09/11/13 11:06 PM
3

No the point is that very little to none of the sensory pleasure response of the penis, comes from the shaft skin. The relative difference between the two is enormous. Think, the difference in sensitivity between your elbow, and the insides of your cheeks. That is the point being made. Edit: I accidentally a word
/r/MensRights09/11/13 10:56 PM
1

As of recently yes, the rates in some areas tend to be so low. As a whole country, iirc the US is still sitting at ~50%, a carry over from days of ~80% circumcision rates
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:55 PM
1

Oh I know, I didn't mean to seem to be refuting your point. I apologize if that was how it seemed! I simply wanted to make the difference clear, because the point (about sex organ homology) is a big one, and often comes up in circumcision discussions/debates. However, it is very rarely used correctly, and often people infer analogy, from the homology of sex organs, which is erroneous from a biological standpoint.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:53 AM
1

While I understand and appreciate the point you were trying to make, there is an important distinction to be made with it. Namely, that homology, does not mean analogy. This means more or less, that while structures may be homologous (as the glans penis and glans clitoris are), this says little to nothing about the resultant final physiology/anatomy of these organs, and their subsequent importance to the overall biological system. Think of it like wheels. Every kind of wheel we have today, devel…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 12:23 AM
10

As I already said last time, you don't know what you're talking about. But since just outright telling you so caused you to kneejerk downvote me instead, this time I'll cite my critique of your lack of information. There is not a single woman in the world who is happy with her female circumcision, or would choose to get one later on in life. False. There are several studies on FGM, of various types, and many of them find the EXACT OPPOSITE, of what you've said here. Many victims of FGM actually …
/r/MensRights04/11/13 04:57 PM
6

You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to FGM. Your personal anecdote and experience is irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to discussing MGM, for the same reasons you are an idiot to get your tires taken off your car and drive directly on the rims, just because you blew a tire once. Glaring inconsistencies abound.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 04:40 PM
2

You said it better then I ever could've. Thank you a million times over for this. People are so concerned with not running counter to their cultural norms they seriously have to stop and ask, "what about the parents feelings?" when trying to decide to hack bits off of another person. No one ever asks, "what about the feelings of the person you're mutilating?" It's fucking insanity to say the least. The person making the call has more importance than the person on the receiving end? Sounds fair.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 06:45 PM
2

Oh really? Worked fine for me :/ One second, I'll try to find an alternative link that hopefully works better. Edit: Try this instead, then clicking on full text.pdf
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:07 PM
2

Here's a good article which delves into the tremendous pain/trauma associated with circumcision, as well as some of the resultant psychopathology
/r/MensRights21/10/13 08:39 PM
2

Just a minor point, all circumcised men retain some mucous membrane. It's the inner skin, directly attached to your glans and above your circumcision scar. This tissue responds to tension/tissue expansion as well, however it does so much much slower than normal skin. You're right about not being able to restore any of the specialized structures, what you have is what you have. But whatever you have, you can make more of it.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:12 PM
2

As others here have mentioned, look into foreskin restoration, it will greatly improve your situation guaranteed. The biggest downside is that it is a long process, and a lot of work. It takes so long because you are not stretching the skin at all, you are stimulating cell division by application of tension. The same process that allows people to 'stretch' their ears, or become morbidly obese without exploding. Your skin grows new cells to relieve the tension, and as such we leverage this aspect…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:09 PM
4

Not a problem, I appreciate you giving me the chance to deliver such a response and not throwing knee-jerk response pro-circumcision talking points at me. It gets tiring rebutting the same arguments over and over. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. I can't do much about my foreskin, it's long gone. But I'd like to do everything I can to make sure future infant sons get to keep theirs as I never did, and often that means trying to educate as much as possible. Cheers
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:52 AM
13

There are a few answers to this question. The biggest and most important issue, comes down to the fact that circumcision when performed on infants, is a violation of the right to bodily integrity. This is one of the most important basic human rights, ie. that you have a right to ownership and stewardship of your body, and a right to keep all of its parts. Circumcision is in direct opposition to, and in violation of this moral/ethical principle. People are not allowed to take pieces of your body …
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:20 AM
5

I'll do you the good faith of actually responding, and assuming you aren't some ridiculous troll as you've been accused. Firstly more importantly, about the intent. This is an appeal to emotion in terms of argument. Intent is not the most important when talking about the value of something. Outcome is. If you intend to help your friend whom is suffering a burst appendix, by performing a surgery yourself with a steak knife, you will probably kill this friend of yours. All the best intent in the w…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:38 PM
2

I honestly don't understand what the point of this distinction is, except perhaps to allow a path for which NAFALT may come into play. I agree that many people call themselves feminists and do/believe things that differ from whichever pool of average feminists you might happen to sample does, but I don't see the relevancy. If there are organizations of people calling themselves feminists, working against the rights of boys and men, why do the people whom aren't like that, matter? They don't hold…
/r/MensRights04/10/13 06:54 PM
2

No it's fine I believe that. I was only speaking In general terms, when circumcision is absolutely necessary which is usually few and far between. Phimosis isn't often so severe as to necessitate circumcision.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 01:59 PM
2

At this point and as a circumcised man mind you, I just can not say that i have experienced the draw backs first hand. This a common position of circumcised men, and one I myself held before (as a similarly circumcised man). However you only need examine this position briefly to see how irrelevant our anecdote is to the brunt of the circumcision debate. To tout the fact you've been mostly happy with your penis despite being circumcised means nothing, because you (and I previously) have no basis …
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:08 PM
2

Honestly, I've found nothing in the above to better explain why it is unreasonable to aim to have equal opportunities for men and women. Yes men and women are biologically different, and in those differences you can define standards, but that doesn't debase the idea that some people will fall on the other end of those biological trends, and could fulfill roles opposite to what we'd expect. This is what I'm asking. Why is strict adherence to "biology" so preferable. It's drawing an absolute where…
/r/MensRights14/09/13 04:27 PM
1

I don't understand how equality of opportunity affords men and women anything other than the chance to "be men" or "be women" such that we can draw from the greatest strengths of each individual in the complimentary sense you've talked about. In my mind, the mentality you're expressing is literally the end result of the kind is equality that we're striving for. Freedom of choice and opportunity allows this complimentary interaction you seem to be after. I do not disagree with what you've quoted …
/r/MensRights14/09/13 01:11 PM
2

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree. But the fact of the matter is there is no collective list of things you HAVE to believe in, to be an MRA. We're a loose affiliation of people with overall similar ideas about the problems of men. This and only this is what I'm addressing, my own stance on the matter was irrelevant to my post. Circumcision, is one the areas where people tend to fall on opposite sides of the line. Until some formal leadership or something is elected, pro-circumcision men wil…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:03 PM
1

It seems to be a topic many in the mrm would like to be a core tenet, required for calling oneself an MRA, even if no "official" requirement may exist. Sorry to say, I can't say I don't support the move towards uniformity in that direction
/r/MensRights13/09/13 07:30 AM
6

So you'll let me cut parts off my kids for aesthetics, but you seriously take issue with me giving them some colour for flair and personality? They won't remember, they can get it covered up, removed or modified later, and it'll be performed by a professional. I honestly don't see your problem man.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:02 AM
8

So why isn't it being done yet? There are plenty of men's rights groups out there, and if I could think of this, so could they. So why haven't they? They have, it's called the intactivist movement. Like feminism, the MRM is not a unified ideological movement. Many people within the MRM are anti-circumcision as it's widely held to be a key tenet of Men's Rights Advocacy. However the flip side is that some aren't. There is no membership card, and no true leadership or manual for being an MRA. Thus…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 12:02 AM
13

... real women prefer uncut No true scotsman fallacy. Lets try to keep such discussions constructive, and not alienating to people like myself whom are/were circumcised with no say in the matter. Comments like this do nothing to help change minds, and only harm those already affected. I'm already an intactivist, but if I wasn't its comments like this that would make me inclined to tell the movement to fuck right off.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:59 PM
19

Sweet, time to get my kids tatteddddd. I'm thinking Gucci Mane Ice creams for all the boys and girls?
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:56 PM
5

The chart is referring to option 6
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:23 PM
5

The unfortunate reality is that you could, but you'd almost guaranteed get nowhere.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:51 PM
3

This is nitpicking for the sake of splitting hairs. I think it's fair to say that anyone reading my response had a good idea of what I was talking about in saying "sterile". For all intents and purposes, urine that has not yet been exposed to the outside environment is sterile. Yes there are bacteria in the urethra, however upon initial contact with urine is this going to result in an explosion of growth and instant turbidity of the urine solution because it's become saturated with bacterial cul…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:08 PM
12

I am not a feminist, but honestly, as an issue that is very important to me, I don't really care who fights to reduce male circumcision to the point of non-existence. As long as it is done in a way that actually helps the situation, and isn't simply co-opted for the sake of propping up their movements credibility.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:30 PM
4

but I assure you that wounds heal (this happens to be the nature of wounds) You literally dodged /u/fdsgdh's question. He/she asked how is it hygenic to create a large open wound on an infant child, which needs to be exposed to the diaper environment filled with feces and urine for weeks on end until it heals? This has nothing to do with the nature of a wound and the healing process, it has to do with the environment that wound will be subject to immediately after being inflicted. Secondarily wo…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:27 PM
8

Well then you should try sharing an opinion that invites discussion, instead of something so asinine as, "I wish people would shut up about this", since it brings absolutely nothing to the table. It's one thing to say, "I don't agree with the issues presented with this topic, here's why." It's something else to be dismissive of an entire topic as if you feeling a particular way about it, invalidates speaking about it at all. Which it doesn't.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:42 AM
3

Perhaps you should try taking your own prescription, since your experience doesn't speak on the behest of everyone with a penis.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:14 AM
4

Exactly, that's a more levelheaded response than I can attribute to more than 90% of the people I've encountered with an off the cuff pro-circ/pro-parental choice attitude about the topic. As a side note, make sure you are noting the sources of your research. You might not be surprised to find a lot of pro circumcision studies will be coming out of the US, and a lot of anti circ studies will be coming out of everywhere else in the world.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 05:45 AM
8

Well that went better than expected
/r/MensRights24/08/13 05:39 AM
1

It has nothing to do with "being oppressed". It has to do with a cut and dry example of discriminate treatment of a human rights issue, and the lack of attention that it receives. I don't think circumcision is an example of oppression. I think it is an example of money influencing and driving a poor medical practice, bad science, and ignorance, which culminate into a violation of the individual human rights of the people subjected to it. I don't really care that you have a different opinion abou…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:56 PM
1

It is cited information, but I don't have the source offhand. I'm preparing for a final exam atm, and don't have time nor interest to dig it up. I invite you to search yourself however. Wikipedia for a quick fix says, The WHO divides FGM into four categories (see image below right for Types I–III).[16] Around 85 percent of women experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III.[53] I've seen these numbers verified from multiple different sources however, and consistently infibulation ranks amo…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:03 PM
2

Ad hominem doesn't make what /u/eatstinybaldbabies false, just makes you look like a bigger clown
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:10 PM
1

However, convince me if I'm wrong. I have no problem changing my mind. Alright, here it is plain and simple. To be fair, there are important differences between the two. This is simply not true in the context that you're using it and really, in the context that pretty much everyone uses the words male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation. What you've erroneously done, is lump every single type of MGM into the label "Male Circumcision", and every single type of FGM into "Female Circum…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:03 PM
6

I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit because female sexuality is often depicted as joke and a threat, too. See: stereotype of Cougars and home wreckers. Lmao, what? Lets step back for a second here and actually pretend you might be onto something by following this assertion to its end. Sexual Stereotypes of women; cougars and homewreckers (whores, effectively) What do we as a society say these people look like? Usually oldish weathered women (cougar) or trashy young woman (homewrecker). Sexual Ste…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:10 PM
1

Not a problem, glad I could shed some light on the subject for you. Cheers
/r/MensRights20/08/13 04:15 AM
21

It really isn't that difficult a situation to come by or imagine to be honest. I suspect it has a lot to do with your preconceived notions about what a man is and isn't and what a woman is and isn't and the roles they tend to play therein. I mean this in the least antagonistic sense possible. Anyways here's a couple example scenarios, You're drunk, too drunk to fight back effectively, or physically protect yourself. Passing out makes you beyond an easy target. This is basically the same as with …
/r/MensRights20/08/13 01:56 AM
2

Then perhaps you should try actually basing your opinions on fact and reason instead of what seems good or cool? Would probably help in many areas of life Id wager.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:44 PM
2

From my understanding, lack of a foreskin can increase sensitivity during intercourse or masturbation, and also increase the time taken to achieve completion, but the feeling or the actual orgasm is relatively independent from the sensation on the penis. Well the results of my restoration progress tell me that this is absolutely untrue. My orgasms and sexual pleasure in general have been substantially increased since I've gotten a decent length of time in. However this isn't a study of course, j…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:29 PM
9

This is just a rehashed NAFALT rhetoric. "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes," This is not a concept which feminism has exclusive rights to support and represent, and really that is the assumption that NAFALT hinges on. That despite all evidence and real world affect to the contrary, feminism doesn't and has not actively precipitated the change it belts out in its definitions. I don't disagree with any of your assessments about the average feminist and their …
/r/MensRights03/08/13 05:46 PM
1

That's one thing about the circumcision "debate" I've honestly never understood. The whole "it's cleaner, dirt gets trapped in the folds!" Argument. It's almost as if the literal flesh and mucous and moist gaping cavern that is a vagina, doesn't exist in their minds.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:04 AM
6

As a man who absolutely hates being circumcised, shit like this is like a punch in the face. I can't stand people like that, whom would so quickly tell ME what I have the right to feel about my body, and in this case, her son. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:18 PM
16

As if there's only one thing that ever happens in any subreddit right?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:53 PM
2

I don't have any specific reply to contribute, however I asked this exact same question (albeit with differing points) when I first discovered the MRM and Egalitarian movements as "things that existed" some months ago. It got fairly good responses, so I figured I'd link to it so you had another pool of replies and opinions to consider, some of which may not show up in this thread this time around. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/132uwv/why_mens_rights_and_not_simply_egalitarianism/
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:04 PM
1

This is really not about you. It was an example. I know, hence why I said, "in your example" which I played off of. Thanks for the redundancy though. The shop is his, not yours. You should have no right to that place. To work there is not a right. It is a permission or an invitation, granted by the owner. And he should have all the rights to decide what kind of people he wants and does not want. To me this is simple. I agree, it is not my right to work there. However it is my right to be afforde…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:17 PM
6

what do you mean by "accountable" in this case? to suffer the consequences of, the change in outcome or oppourtunity due to, change in reality due to, etc. etc. A perfect example was given by yourself. Not hiring black people because they're perceived to be untrustworthy. Maybe the owner of the shop whom holds this view, was betrayed, robbed, or other wise harmed by black people on several occasions, and as a result is slow to trust them, or perhaps doesn't trust them at all. I'm black myself (m…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:47 PM
1

Because then you find yourself in a situation where innocent people are held accountable for the actions of others. Which makes absolutely no sense.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 08:42 PM
6

Protip, next time utilize /s. There are enough nutjobs around here saying stuff like this and genuinely meaning it, and we have a poor enough public image as is due to peoples ignorance. No need to add to that is all.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:12 PM
9

This actually made my day. Always a pleasure to hear GWW address such things with a level headed, even handed and decimating force of logic and rationale. A rare sight these days in these arenas of discussion it seems.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:49 PM
13

I imagine the biggest reason is because they can just ask questions here, as the moderation policy at r/mr isn't quite so heavy handed. To ask you the same question, what end would be achieved by having/founding such a subreddit? How would people asking questions there be any better?
/r/MensRights07/07/13 06:20 PM
1

Uhh no? I'm not sure how you misconstrued my post such that it seemed I was advocating for such things but, I wasn't. The point was that men can be circumcised in adulthood, and are, when medical conditions call for it.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:52 PM
7

Yes, absolutely. That's what men whom are left intact and unfortunately develop severe pathological foreskin conditions do, ultimately have it removed. Exactly the same as every other body part pretty much, not to be sarcastic.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:48 AM
4

Circumcisions are performed in the same manners for the same reasons using the same tools by region. No anesthetic on girls = none on boys in whatever place you're talking about. People often ignore the cultural divides and like to cherry pick examples of disparity from non equivalent circumstances. Adjusting and correcting for this it's always astoundingly parallel across the sexes, almost every time.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:46 AM
14

Add to that the fact it's highly specialized and functional skin, many portions of which we don't have anywhere else on the human body. Kinda makes you think it just might have a purpose after all -_-:
/r/MensRights30/06/13 05:01 PM
1

I agree, but I'm not going to support your jumping to conclusions as to the content of such a parade as a valid reason why they shouldn't have one. Again, if the event is kept tactful and on-topic, I don't see the issue in quite the same way you do. Whether or not I expect them to? Well thats a different argument, and one I don't particularly care to entertain haha
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:01 AM
1

Edit: Oops, Just realized I thought you responded to another comment of mine, not this one. The point is to raise awareness, that there are indeed men whom are intact and fine. I won't spell it out here since I have in other comments in this thread, just go find those if you're genuinely interested.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:54 AM
1

I've run into it while trying to navagate a confusing downtown area I'd never been to before with poorly marked one-way streets, and no way to know if my destination was in the middle of the march, or how far the march went. I have felt distain for parades of any kind ever since. If you want to celebrate something, do it someplace where it doesn't muck with other people's lives by closing multiple major streets in an already congested area. Again, you'll find no disagreement from me on these poi…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:43 AM
3

The most thought any kind of parade tends to get out of me is "oh look, another group of dufusses mucking up traffic." Fair enough. I've never run into this problem so I don't share the sentiment, but it makes sense. Having better things to do, yadda yadda. On top of that, it seems rather self-defeating. If whatever it is you are marching for is so wonderful, why do you need a parade to be proud of it? I don't think the point of this is to actually literally display pride for being intact. I agr…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 11:39 PM
7

I think this serves a definite and important purpose when it comes to intactivism. Are pride marches always the best avenue to exact any kind of change in a given area? No, of course not, but what is the greatest hurdle in the fight against infant circumcision? Lack of awareness that there is even a problem. What's one of the biggest arguments for circumcision? What if he has to be circumcised later? What if he gets laughed at and hates that we didn't do it to him when he was younger and wouldn'…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:36 PM
10

I think you might be missing the point of this just a tad.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:31 PM
6

I admitted it was blown out of proportion, that was the point of the example, which you seem to have missed. It wasn't supposed to be a perfect analogy, equivalent on every metric. It was an equivalent circumstance in every way EXCEPT the magnitude of harm committed. You have propped up your lack of understanding about the harms of forced circumcision, on the basis that there is a lack of magnitude of damage in your opinion. So I took the next logical step, and asked where does that end then? Wh…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 06:32 PM
5

Okay, well I think feet are pretty ugly, so how about we'll cut off yours and replace them with clean sterile prosthetics. Then you'll never have to worry about frost bite, broken or stubbed toes, bacterial/fungal infections like athletes foot, and it'll look better. If we did it when you were a baby, you'd have no idea of the difference. You wouldn't remember a thing and you'd be fine! Somehow I doubt you wouldn't be okay with that scenario. There is no difference here, except in the above exam…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 06:17 PM
6

If you have a choice whether to be circumcised or not then I don't see why it should be outlawed This is exactly why, because you don't have this choice. That was decided for you. What other permanent bodily altering procedures do we let you decide to inflict on other people for no reason? The answer is none because its insane to do so. If you have a serious interest in seeing circumcision for what it is you're going to have to remove yourself and your cultural bias from the equation. The eviden…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 06:09 PM
13

Uh yes? I think everyone's pretty clear on the fact that everyone has their own issues, often differing from one group to the next. </thread>
/r/MensRights24/06/13 07:51 PM
6

That said, if circumcision were shown to be significantly effective at reducing HIV transmission, then the government's target number of circumcisions would at least make some sense in the context of SA's politics (that said, it wouldn't morally justify nonconsensual circumcision). I don't think that this position is necessarily wrong or incorrect but rather feel it suffers from being a mediocre way to deal with a serious problem. Even if we take the poor data at face value (assume there were no…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:16 PM
3

In case anyone is interested/concerned about their having a profile on the app, taken from lulu's website, Takedown Policy We have a progressive, responsive takedown policy. There are 2 ways for people reviewed on Lulu to remove themselves: - Log on to LuluDude (m.luludude.com) and deactivate themselves from within Settings. - Email their Facebook username to [email protected]. The Facebook username is what comes after www.facebook.com/… when you’re logged in on Facebook. It could look somethin…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:58 PM
1

Are you really going to be so facetious as to hide behind one word, weird versus odd? Substitute whatever you want I've already explained this had nothing to do with defending the author or thinking you were calling them out as gay or misogynistic. The only point I had is that if you aren't doing any of those things, you're pretty much an idiot then for refusing to consider any other underlying reasons behind his preference of women and stick to your guns of how it's "odd", as if that makes any …
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:01 PM
1

Why did the word "odd" make you blow up? Why do you assume I blew up? Because I had a long winded response to what you had said? Do not mistake lengthy speech, with a boiling over of anger or something ridiculous like that. Ad hominem much? I'm not arguing the article in question was well written, or even close to correct. I'm arguing nothing is odd about having multiple sets of opinions about something. Knowing what we know, it would be more expected for his preference to be kind, gentle, carin…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:13 PM
2

Yes, it is reductionist to say that one factor of ones sexuality being not completely inline with what would perfectly describe such a status, (straight, gay, or otherwise) is "odd" on those merits alone. There are many parts to women, beyond simply their vaginas. You saying it's "odd" that someone might think vaginas are kind of (or even really) gross, while also stating their sexual preference to be women, really glosses over every other single aspect of sexuality except whether or not you hav…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 07:58 PM
3

Because women cannot and shouldn't be reduced to simply vaginas? It's pretty simple actually. You can have issues with one and still like/prefer the other. You can even gasp have issues with something and overall find the pros outweigh the cons!
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:09 PM
3

No worries, I understand (both the reference and your intent). I didnt mean to imply otherwise, I was simply addressing your uncertainty about the "scope" of MGM being larger than that of FGM, and providing an argument for why the case is that one is larger than the other. No more, no less. Cheers
/r/MensRights15/06/13 01:30 AM
6

Look into restoring. If your lack of sensitivity is as bad as you say, I have no doubt that restoration will give you back orders of magnitude of function, and sensitivity that you're currently lacking. Restoration is a bit of a misnomer. You cannot regenerate anything that is not currently there. The inner mucosal tissue (pink skin directly from your glans [head] down to your scar line) and the outer shaft skin (everything below the scar to your abdomen) are primarily what will be regrown/resto…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:38 PM
11

While I'm not sure about larger in scope (though probably correct) This isn't probably correct, it's verifiably correct. Do even a tiny bit of base preliminary research on the prevalence of MGM/FGM, and apply a bit of math to it and you see that it's an extremely cut and dry issue. Males around the world, are being genitally mutilated at a rate closely approaching an entire order of magnitude larger than their female counterparts. As was pointed out earlier, 3rd world conditions breed 3rd world …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:20 PM
2

Reddit automatically hands out downvotes here and there over time. I didnt know this myself until recently and asked the same question once lol. Pay it forward next time you see the question arise!
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:53 PM
2

Whatever I guess you're right. I'm just crazy sitting here looking at the link I edited in. One of the great mysteries of the universe to never be solved, where that link is.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:33 PM
1

First of all, the front page of r/mr you know where one would logically go to try and find a particular popular thread posted to this sub. Second of all, I already told you to go to my original post. At the top of this thread, I edited it in. Now can you please kindly move the fuck on?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:38 AM
1

Try my original post's edit. It's now number 13. Wow, so difficult.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 12:47 AM
1

Well I apologize, but again, it's on the front page. #7 I'm sorry if you cannot be bothered to skim the front page for something, but that is hardly my responsibility. I came to address the repost, not promote the original. No more no less
/r/MensRights09/06/13 08:30 PM
1

It's really not so much that it's a repost that had prompted me to say something. It was the fact that the exact same topic is currently ACTIVE and being discussed at #7 on the front page. No one coming to /r/mr and reading the threads is going to miss it unless they purposefully skip it. Thus your thread was completely ineffectual, and useless. A repost without merit, and hence why I mentioned it. As I said before it's not the end of the world. Just in the future a quick check of the front page…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:56 PM
0

I understand the intrinsic "value" of reposting, and that is not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it is OP's responsibility to at least do a brief check to see if things had been reposted. The original is still on the front page. It's literally post #7 right now. I said that in my original post. The fact you missed it is not a justification for a lack of basic forum/reddiquete, and lies solely on your shoulders and in your responsibility, no one elses. Is it the end of the world? No, bu…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:47 PM
11

Not to be an ass, but down voted because I mean shit, this was submitted 12 hours ago already with ~70 comments and nearly an identical title. Try to actually peruse quickly before submitting next time. Reposting is getting ridiculous around r/mr these days. The other post is still on the front page ffs. This sub isn't a karma machine, and that's how this post seems to me (especially with the tacked on bit about it being OP's friend.) Sorry to be the douche, ill take the down votes willingly but…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:23 PM
2

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for digging it up :)
/r/MensRights08/06/13 04:48 AM
4

I don't mean to be an ass, but do you have a source for those sentences by the charges? I'd be interested just to see exactly what it says on paper about "conspiracy to assassinate the president" and whatnot, since its not something that comes up often hah.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:43 AM
2

Any precedent to go from in recent years? I'm not American myself (beyond dual citizenship) and don't follow much that goes on there usually, so I couldn't tell you if it has happened before. However it'd be interesting to see how this is handled compared to previous "assassination attempts".
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:36 AM
-2

Why does everyone feel absolutely necessary to point this out every time I mention restoration as if that detracts from the laundry list of improvements it provides. -_-; I'm well aware that you cannot regrow any of the specialized structures of the foreskin. We're talking about tension based tissue expansion. Not magic. I don't think anyone whom actually looks into restoration seriously (as something theyre considering) is deluded on that front. However this is really a non issue. Like I said t…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:32 AM
1

Not to veer somewhat off track, but to address something quickly Sex would actually feel better than it already does, can you imagine that? You have the chance and ability to experience this. The trade off is a lot of time and dedication to reach that point. If you have any interest what so ever, I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that foreskin restoration is something worth looking into. 8 months in myself, and its the best decision I have ever made for my body, bar none. Sex was good befor…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:48 PM
1

iirc a Mashup of atheism and feminism.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 02:26 PM
1

Yes I agree, I was just being clear.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:59 PM
4

I can't remember for certain. I asked my girlfriend whom I met through working there, she was there for much longer than I, and worked a lot of box office. It's been awhile since she worked there too, but as far as she can remember the policy is the sex of the parent doesn't matter, but rather that only one parent, can get the discount. Not both. I don't think there are standard procedures in place in terms of determining which parent gets the discounted admission however.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:56 PM
21

As someone who worked at a cineplex theatre for nearly 4 years, I can tell you without a shred of doubt, that you will be waiting a long time to get a reply. If you ever do get a reply, I sincerely doubt it will be from anyone above middle management at the particular location you visited. Cineplex is easily one of the worst companies I've ever worked for, and I didn't doubt a moment of every shift I worked, that I meant nothing to them beyond being a bottom line. In my experience, management is…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:19 PM
4

I understand your point, and I agree, but I think you've really misconstrued OP's position to see it in that light. I don't think it had anything at all to do with not being allowed to walk her down the aisle. That was the very beginning of him getting upset at dinner and a small piece of a much large puzzle you seem to have missed. The problem was that he had been her father. Even though as you said yourself, he isn't "real dad" he did everything real dad should have (assuming his side of the s…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:25 PM
3

How can he show this with facts, when the facts don't exist? There is no study I am aware of, which seeks to comprehensively compare across the two of them, the differences between male and female circumcision. Many studies show circumcised women touting and throwing around the exact same reasons and justifications for the procedure that circumcised men do. They lead (what they consider to be) happy sexual lives, and very few report diminished/unsatisfactory levels of sensitivity and sexual func…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:03 PM
7

Your analogy falls flat before reaching validity here for a couple of reasons. Funnily enough your analogy works better to demonstrate why your position is false and thus it works against you, more than it works to support it, but I digress. First of all, if you clean your friends wound with salt, because that may be the only available method, are you torturing them? This entire analogy hinges on the emphasized parts (emphasis mine), that the salt in the wound is the BEST method for cleaning thi…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:51 PM
7

I know, I'm just saying it seems kind of pointless to even mention that she isn't white at all considering; A. The article mentioned it itself (author brought up her father being Latino), and B. She looks very Caucasian, to anyone not following the case closely or to a passerby, she could easily pass as white, which ties directly into the point of the whole thing I just don't see why you bothered to bring it up at all, is all. It's an inconsequential technicality which really does nothing to alt…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:34 PM
9

Way to home in on the salient points of the article /s
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:04 PM
1

Agreed. It's unfortunate because many of the people around me are intact. My two closest friends are both intact. Those two are like brothers to me, and so it was a great source of anguish for me to be the "odd one out" of our trio, while they could regale in the oddities and pleasures of being intact leaving me to wonder what it's like. The irony of feeling like an outcast while being the one circumcised, is not lost on me in the slightest.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 04:43 AM
1

Nope. Single mother having a baby way too young. Not that I've asked yet but that's my guess; that being freshly 18 and going to university with a baby made such choices trivial in the grande scheme of what was going on around her. Feelsrealbad man
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:43 PM
1

Common enough :(
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:17 AM
0

One-thousand times this. So many times people get caught up in the irrelevant argument of, "That's not what REAL feminism is about", or "The opinions of one crazy feminist doesn't dictate the opinions and ideals of the whole movement!" Well, usually it doesn't. But when those people are the leaders, and icons as kragshot said, their words and inane ravings suddenly hold a lot more clout and power in the grand scheme of things. It would be okay, if the "Radical feminists" were drowned out by the …
/r/MensRights22/11/12 07:39 PM
3

Treat it first and foremost as a sexual object It's obvious what this is getting at, but it also applies to men I feel. Unsolicited groping/touching, male rape victims being told (as you said) "You must have enjoyed it", the idea that all men are sex crazed rapists with no kind of self control, all serves to paint men as purely sexual beings, which ultimately dehumanizes them to the point of objects. Thus, sexual object. Control it's reproduction I dont think much else needs to be said here unfo…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 03:51 PM
2

Yup, I'm in the middle of an argument about this pretty much right now. Poster refuses to consider MGM and FGM on the same plane of injustice, purely because it's generally "far worse and damaging". I'm trying to argue that at a certain point of "wrong" magnitude no longer matters, because they should just be flat out disallowed (ex. Cutting infant/childrens genitals for non medical reasons). I just don't understand why people can't see the exact same scenario playing out against men/boys, that …
/r/MensRights21/11/12 03:13 AM
1

I agree, unfortunately that has little to no influence on the prevalence of such thinking. Go to any circumcision thread not in a MR related or pro MR subreddit, and they come out pretty quick
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:51 AM
4

Being (recently) a somewhat outspoken intactivist I've noticed this line of thought constantly/consistently. The #1 response given when I mention how much I hate having been circumcised as an infant/how negatively that has affected me, is that I must have some deeper lying psychological issues, if "something so small" affects me so much. So yeah, I can say these observations of yours are accurate.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:09 PM
0

I don't understand why people keep insisting that removing body parts to prevent potential future issues is good medicine. It's not. That's really what this comes down to. All of the supposed medical "benefits" of being circumcised are either a. insignificant, b. solved via other avenues of medicine, or c. not problems an infant has to deal with or will run into. Most of the evidence for a good portion of the "benefits" is fuzzy at best. Regardless that's a moot point, because again, we simply s…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:16 AM
0

Did you not read my post? I said all circumcised penises where it had been performed for no medical reason, because there is already a word for it. It's called mutilated. I understand what you're getting at, and honestly, I fundamentally disagree. Just like female circumcision is not the best descriptor for it. Less inflammatory terminology like "circumcision" is part of the problem. It trivializes the procedure, and makes it seem like something of medical value when performed. The truth is the …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 05:54 PM
2

No, I call them mentally handicapped, or mentally deficient, or people possessing a mental disability, because those are all better and more accurate descriptors than the specifically derogatory term "retard". If you're going to try and pose a loaded question like that, at least make it a good one ffs.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:30 AM
6

It's not uncommon to run into ad hominem attacks as soon as you bring up the simple truth about circumcision. That being that it ONLY destroys, damages, and reduces the ability of the penis to function as a complete sexual organ. There is no way around that. Being happy about it, doesn't change the fact it has still been altered for the worse. When getting into discussions about it, other men have to either face this fact (and engage in discussion), or refute it, and engage in the tried and true…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 04:09 AM
8

Yes I fully and completely oppose, Male genital mutilation. I do not oppose circumcision. What is the fundamental difference? Circumcision is an elective procedure, when for medical necessity, the male foreskin is removed. MGM, is when the procedure known as circumcision, is performed on an infant, or a child against their will, or without their consent, for any reason beyond medical necessity (aesthetics, religion, etc.) You should change your mind, because it's no different from FGM, or cuttin…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 04:02 AM
6

No, because mutilation by definition requires healthy, functional tissue, to be damaged for no reason. That is the fundamental basis. When a consenting adult, at the advice of their healthcare professional opts to undergo a procedure to remove their foreskin, it is called a circumcision, the name for the medical procedure. When an infant is forced to have their foreskin removed at the request/consent of their parents for no medical reason, it is mutilation. Plain and simple. I prefer to call app…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 03:53 AM
2

Many people have provided an exceptional amount of quality resources thus far, so I doubt I have much to contribute that hasn't already been said. However I've found this youtube video to be pretty handy in giving people a (somewhat/not so) concise account of the reasons why you shouldn't genitally mutilate your children, for the sake of societal perception. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I&list=FLXzghVnqHSZCSYoj_SL2p0Q&feature=mh_lolz
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:13 AM
6

It's nice to find other people in the world, who don't just default to calling you crazy, or a "penis obsessed lunatic" for being extremely unhappy that a part of your body was removed without your permission, or say in the matter. So I suppose you can add me to the list of people this guy represents in this dialogue. I hate that I was circumcised, and will not hesitate to tell anyone willing to listen.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:08 AM
5

Please try to refrain from making wild accusations and implications which have no basis in the real world. OP has whats called a life, and cant wait on this thread hand and foot all day.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:10 PM
1

No, translation: There's no discourse to have here. Clearly you're set in your opinions, so whats the point in getting into a discussion, that will go nowhere?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 05:06 PM
1

This isn't worth my time to dignify with further response. It's pretty clear where you fall amongst the average respondents. Thanks for your time?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:29 PM
1

Yes. However, F1, D1, Nascar, and Rally are all different, yet they can exist under the same banner of autosports. That's not quite a perfect analogy, but I think you see what I'm getting at. Difference does not necessitate separation. Perhaps in the current sociopolitical climate they do, which better answers my question, but again, this is more of a thought experiment, than an attempt to actually "improve" or change the MRM as it currently stands.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:00 PM
1

unnecessary comment is unnecessary. Look mom I can do it too!
/r/MensRights13/11/12 03:54 PM
1

I don't mean to be a dick, but I don't see how your elaboration is any different from what I said. All of that is encompassed in your quote, via less verbiage. I guess the difference is that I hope people could view the greater good in supporting people of causes with similar roots, versus simply aiming for what one prioritizes in their own lives.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 03:53 PM
1

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough (and I agree you didnt). To continue, that because of the overlap/validity of both, I don't see the necessity to actively pursue one over the other, despite also agreeing that one certainly has more "priority" in my mind over the other.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:35 AM
2

I see what you mean and agree. In terms of choosing egalitarianism, it was moreso just a matter of necessity. I agree the labels don't matter, the point was the idea of getting people for equality, working together under one label, to help fight against people whom dont care for anyone but their own groups. United we stand and all that jazz basically. The reasoning for this being, I don't see feminism going anywhere soon, and directly opposing it as a mens group doesn't seem to be helping much.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:23 AM
1

Fair enough, as do I. I was mostly just saying that one does not negate the other, nor imply that there is no overlap between the problems faced by such groups.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:14 AM
2

How is this any different than the case we have now (not that I'm saying I agree it would happen)? The point is that the people in control of this movement, would be the people with genuine interest in everyones best interests. The women helping solve womens rights issues, wouldn't be downplaying mens issues as less important, because they're reasonable and sane people. I know many women who are activists for womens issues specifically, but who've never said mens issues are unimportant, just tha…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:11 AM
2

Hmm, well this is going more into the specific problems with executing such an idea, which I didn't want to get into. But I appreciate the insight, as it is obviously a hole, and I agree with your predictions now that I've had a chance to think about them.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:03 AM
1

Well thank you for clarifying. It is much appreciated.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:01 AM
3

This would not be a dividing of banners, but instead an opening of doors to additional supporters, by changing the fundamental basis (but not the focus) of the movement. The basis would be equality for everyone, the focus would be whichever avenues you feel need to most help (mens, womens, animal rights whatever). I feel the MRM is already (supposed) to be rooted in this base belief, but its hard to say so, if there is no action or attempt to uphold it in SOME way, beyond pursuing solutions to i…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:01 AM
2

You are ignoring the main point of this, that being, the idea is people fighting for equality, not just men. It is difficult to fathom that women might be willing to give up these billions of dollars of resources and whatnot, to a party which is not directly affiliated with them, but I think it's insulting to believe every woman on the planet would rather do nothing, then attempt to help in one way or another. Some women understand and sympathize with the plight of the MRM, just as do some men t…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:59 AM
2

I understand, but would it be safe to say both men and women are plagued by deficiencies in both the current standard legal, and social constructs within which we live? It is with this fact I feel working together to make sure everyones needs are met, is the best option. Not just working on our half from our side and their half from theirs, as there is overlap seen in many places up and down the line.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:50 AM
1

canttelliftrolling.jpeg
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:49 AM
1

Now ask yourself... can someone who believes in this also truly believe in equal rights? There is no such thing as "good" feminists... only people who call themselves feminists who don't actually know what feminism has become... These are the people who matter in my example. The ones mislabeling themselves as feminists. I agree that the actions of an organization, do better to indicate what it is, than what is said about it. But that doesn't mean there aren't (erroneously) self proclaimed femini…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:49 AM
2

Well we all know what would happen there don't we? I thought it had been outlined fairly clearly, that feminism isn't about women's rights, it's about trying to amass as much power as possible for women, despite the cost to other groups of people (in this case, men). Those are not analogous circumstances. A better example would be, for me to post to r/womensrights and ask them. Unless you're implying that MR is not about men's rights at all, in which case, this would be a valid "experiment" in t…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:39 AM
1

I agree wholeheartedly. What I meant to convey moreso was the possibility that there might be much to gain, from trying to encompass as many people as possible. I understand and agree with your (and many other people here's) position about wanting to focus on mens rights only, because it specifically applies to you, whereas women's right don't. What I was trying to get at (evidently, rather ineffectively) is that some things will just inherently have overlap. That some sections of individual rig…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:36 AM
1

Well obviously. The people who's ideals aren't correct (the modern feminist) are outside the scope of this. I assumed that went without saying. The fundamental basis is that the people this "egalitarian movement" would encompass, aren't trying to squash mens rights at every turn.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:42 PM
3

Well this ties directly back into what I'm trying to say I feel. If you (and others) aren't MRM's, then why not develop such a movement which accurately reflects your ideals? Take the allies of just causes, and combine them into one so to speak. I realize in practice this isn't quite so easy, but I'm just asking if this is inherently a fundamentally flawed idea, or if its simply an idea which is difficult to execute.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:40 PM
2

I'm not implying that we must believe in the church of egalitarianism, what I'm saying is that it makes more sense to me, to look out for the best interests of everyone (and thus encompass as many people as possible), when it comes to trying to enact change within society. Not all women are misandrists, not all men are misogynists, so why not take the people who arent, put them all together, and work together to solve all the problems? Instead of dividing amongst ourselves, and fighting both the…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:38 PM
3

I know you were using it as a turn of phrase lol, what I meant is that I wasn't trying to make a suggestion to the community that this needs to be done, or anything like that. I just wanted a more specific dialogue on the merits of (or lack of) this position. And well to be frank, those aren't people who would fit in ultimately with what I'm describing. The basic fundamental idea is that I feel most people just want equal rights for everyone, so it makes sense to form a movement which would deli…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:35 PM
1

Well, ideally it would need to be decided democratically. We use an amalgamation of everyones, based on some predetermined standard. Although the specifics of "how" this would come to fruition are outside the scope of the discussion. I'm merely curious as to why we haven't moved in that direction.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:29 PM
3

I can see your points a bit more clearly now. In terms of laws regarding anatomical differences, it would have to be dealt with in each scenario (one set for abortion, one for other issues, etc.). I think the bottom line would be trying to stick to indemnity as much as possible. That no individual should be in a position of advantage, simply because they are of one sex or another. That is really all I feel is necessary for "equality". This is intimately tied to fairness I think, at least in the …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:37 PM
2

Well the issue here seems to be my use of egalitarianism. What then is egalitarianism actually? As I said I've been under the impression it focuses on equal rights for men and women, no more, no less. It seems I'm wrong on that front. What I'm asking is why there is a need to create an artificial divide based on gender, if effectively, the mrm is supposed to be for equal rights for everyone? Why not just act under an Inclusive banner, with the same direction? Perhaps egalitarianism isn't the rig…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:12 PM
4

I did not attempt to be "preaching" in any way, so I apologize if that was the impression I gave. I'm simply voicing my opinions and getting some feedback. As I said this is all a pretty new concept to me, so I know I'm not equipped to start jumping to conclusions, since I barely have an understanding of the issues and policies behind them. What I'm wondering, and what makes more sense in my mind, is why not round up all the egalitarian MRA's and "feminists" (even though that may be a bad label …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:04 PM
2

Yes, but this explains nothing, and serves no purpose. Please save the senseless posts for someone who has time to entertain them. Either explain your position, or keep it to yourself. I didn't make this thread to see the /MR srs equivalents come out of the woodwork I'm sorry to say.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:51 PM
4

I just did get banned actually. And I don't "take them seriously" but I see the value in entertaining or at least considering the ideals and positions of others. That's not to say I agreed with anything I came across, but I found overall their behavior while more extreme, is similar to what I've seen on and off in r/mr. Also I've been seeing this pop up again and again, people saying egalitarianism cannot and does not work. However no one has explained why. My understanding is that egalitarianis…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:49 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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