Yes, you read that right, circumcision is objective worse than (male-on-female) rape. Does that sound insane, wrong and triggering to you, even if you're an MRA? Well, that maybe due to your internalized misandry. But don't worry. Today, I will carefully explain why circumcision (or male genital mutilation, as I like to call it) is worse than rape.

1. Circumcision causes more harm than rape:

Rape can only be comparable circumcision if the rapist also mutilates the victim's sexual organs. Since rapists do not usually do such, the vast majority of rapes are not as harmful as the mutilation of the penis of a helpless infant.

Basically, circumcision of helpless baby boys is equivalent to sexual assault and permanent wounding with a deadly weapon.

2. The power differential of the victims:

Baby boys are completely helpless, they cannot even speak for themselves. The average (female) victim of rape has a much better chance of fighting back against their attacker than a completely helpless newborn. The criminal justice system take into account the vulnerability of the victim. The more powerless the victim is, the more of a graded the offense. The average rape victim is able to try and seek justice and get the perpetrator of the crime punished, helpless newborn can't.

Also, children naturally born with their parents, all kids therefore natural Stockholm Syndrome victims. Many victims of male genital mutilation are completely unable to comprehend or articulate the abuse and betrayal done to them.

So it is a double whammy, the victim can't get legal address, but many times they can't even understand that they have been abused.

3. The existence of misandry:

Men live in an anti-male misandric society were men are shown less compassion than women. That mean on top of being unable to get justice, male victims are less likely to get support or help to deal with the trauma of genital mutilation.

Male victims get gaslighted by society and are told they are not victims, when they have been abused and tortured in the most vile manner. They were strapped down as a hopeless toddler, and had the most sensitive part of their body removed without anesthetic. The male victim was not only tortured, but was unnecessarily put at the risk of death.

If this was happening to females, such practice would have been considered an outrage. Women would be marching on the street and protesting. White-knight men would attack and beat up doctors who performed female circumcision. Even helpless baby boys are considered disposable subhumans.

If you have a foreskin, feel it and think to yourself: "I only have this part of my body because my parents allowed it". Society did not granted boys the protection from genital mutilation that it grant girls.

4. The institutional nature of circumcision, compared to illegal status of the rape act:

Quite simply, unlike baby dick mutilation, rape is not promoted or performed by any any state-run institutions. Rapists of women are considered subhumans scum of the Earth. In the other hand, baby dick cutting only gets a mere shrunk for many people. You even have people on mainstream social medias praising circumcision, bragging about having it done to their kids or threatening to do it to any kid they have.

People bragging about raping kids or women would most likely hunted down by a mob, if they didn't end up in jail first. Circumcision is a legitimate legal practice in the eyes of society, while rape is illegal.

I've been recommended many post from this sub for whatever reason reddit feels is necessary. I am very curious why people are so upset about HAVING been circumcised. I understand why you wouldn't circumcise a baby boy, and I wouldn't recommend anyone to because it doesn't seem necessary. But (respectfully because this is a genuine question) why are people upset about having been circumcised?

1. Irreversibility + Error Rates?

Any system with non-zero error should not impose irreversible outcomes.

• However there is no chance of wrongful convictions, DNA leading to exonerations, because cutter doctors and ritualists name is on the books for performing the criminal act

• Even a 0.1% failure rate is impossible.

• Appeals are not necessary. There are children being circumcised on camera. All the proof is there.

2. Unequal Application (Structural Bias)?

The death penalty is not applied uniformly.

• Correlations with race, geography, quality of defense, and political climate, wont be present. The death penalty applies regardless of this.

• Two identical crimes won't receive different outcomes depending on jurisdiction won't matter. States who execute, will be more than happy to.

• it’s not policy drift + human bias, because the rate of executions only need to satisfy the average among all capital crimes

3. No Proven Deterrence Advantage?

Empirical research has not shown the death penalty to deter violent crime more effectively than life imprisonment.

• However, having executing some offenders sends the message that the practice will no longer be tolerated by society, especially in some states

• The crime of circumcision is NOT impulsive, emotionally charged, or irrational, conditions where deterrence logic fails, rather it is a crime of meditation (pre planned, conspired).

4. Cost Inefficiency

Capital cases are more expensive, not less.

• Longer trials, mandatory appeals, specialized incarceration. However, society will have to trade this off for being necessary for removing society of THE MOST DANGEROUS predators, which are circumcisers.

• Life without parole is cheaper and achieves incapacitation. Yes. But ONLY as a last resort.

5. State Power Boundary?

The strongest philosophical objection against the death penalty:

The state is responsible for correcting it past mistakes by executing circumcisers. And new mistake, will have to be written off and the cost of the initial mistake. The victims have always lived the negative consequences of circumcision

I really feel like sex with a foreskin is more emotionally than as an amputee. women are intact and they tend to be more loyal than men.

(Maybe I’m wrong about this and apologies if I am, it just seemed very fishy. I originally posted the text of this yesterday. Not long after I posted it, the submission disappeared from the sub. This morning I messaged moderators seeking a reason why, and now this evening I find that the post has returned....oh and the person who’s posting all the anti-feminist stuff, they’re a moderator. )

Hi all, I don’t care to get into a debate about whether or not feminism is aligned with intactivism - suffice it to say that I believe it is.

I’m just wondering am I alone in thinking there has been a massive uptick in the amount of anti-feminist posts recently? I’m also wondering what does everyone think about that?

Like I said, I’m not interested in an argument here, I just don’t feel that this sub aligns with me recently.

I was arguing with this woman, who said she tried to talk her friend out of doing it, but when her friend didn't listen, they just slowly drifted apart. This shows that even many women who think it's wrong don't think it's a big enough deal to ruin a friendship over. Imagine if a man told his friend that he planned to rape a woman, the friend told him not to, and he ignored the friend. Do you think there would be any societal tolerance if the friend said "Yeah, I'm not going scorched earth on the friendship over this, but I'll just gradually drift apart from him"?

EDIT: apparently she worded her initial comments in an ambiguous way, and did actively choose to distance herself from this friend. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure if this topic can be discussed in this sub. Please delete it if you need to. Anyway, we have heard of this Man vs Bear trend which happened a year ago in April and May of 2024. The question was “Would you rather be in the woods with a man or a bear?”. Most of the responses are the bear. According to their responses, it was not wanting to be sexually assaulted. That trend has divided the internet and made people uncomfortable and angry. Personally, I found that trend silly because I felt like it generalized half of the world as ‘rapists”. Anyway, I have never heard any intactivists talk about it. I wonder why there wasn’t a version of this saying “Would you rather be in the woods with a mutilator or a bear?”. Wouldn't most of us rather be eaten alive than strapped down as a helpless infant and mutilated? I would rather be eaten alive in that case. Mutilators are the worst form of men. Mutilators are worse than sexual abusers. What are your thoughts and takes on this? TBH, I wish I made this post a year ago. I feel like it might be too late.

I feel like Bloodstained Men and Brother K have become detrimental to the movement. Their approach comes off as more of a mockery than a serious effort, and I just don’t understand the appeal. Personally, I think their style might push more people away from the cause than it brings in.

I

Hi my name is Cosmo and I'm a Size Specialist...

Many of you may be familiar with ONE and MyONE Condoms already! If you are not, then I can tell you that we are a socially responsible business committed to raising sexual health awareness. We work with artists, health activists, and our customers to make a difference. Something we have been focusing on lately is the 'foreskin gap' in sexual health education and marketing. We are not interested in debating the practice of circumcision as whole, however we are interested in individual experiences so we can better adapt to serve our customers.

As a condom company of course our main curiosity has to do with uncircumcised men's experience using condoms and lubricants. However, we also are curious about how being uncircumcised can positively or adversely impact overall sexual experience. Here are some questions that we believe may help open up the discussion:

Have you ever felt different because you are uncircumcised?

Have you ever been treated differently by a sexual partner because you are uncircumcised? What happened?

Have you ever had difficulty using condoms because you are uncircumcised? If so, please explain

Do you feel that there are enough resources available for uncircumcised men related to sexual health and education?

Do you ever wish that you were circumcised?

So now's your chance! If you're uncircumcised please feel free to talk my ear off about your foreskin and your experience with it throughout your sexual life. If you think we may be missing something in the above questions please let us know. If you have any questions for me as well I'm happy to answer! No promotional stuff here just someone genuinely passionate about the uncircumcised experience!

Feminists are guilty of male circumcision, cause the wanna bunker the term genital mutilation for themselves and other women.

Hey, everyone! Quick update, I read the Tian et al. analysis on penile sensitivity yesterday and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Despite Prof. Brian Morris and his associates claiming that they swung (solely) in their favor, Tian and his colleagues maintained a neutral standpoint throughout. They acknowledged their studies and the highest-quality studies of the intactivist side, eventually reaching what I deem a fair verdict.

"In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men. Although the literature contains a wide range of evidence for and against circumcision, the better quality studies affirm the recommendations of reputable experts who have evaluated the benefits and risks of circumcision as a desirable intervention early in life.

Regardless of the present study outcome that shows an absence of adverse circumcision effects on a range of parameters related to sexual function and penile sensitivity, there is scope for further research, especially additional large, well-designed RCTs in diverse settings and over much longer time periods."

(Tian et al. 2013) Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Update: Guys, if I made any of you upset, I apologize. This was merely a marker on my roadmap of circumcision research. Personally, I believe arguments pushed by pro-circ individuals are morally and ethically unsound, especially since they compare circumcision of adults (who consent to the procedure) with circumcision of infants (who cannot consent). When it comes to the scientific debate, however, more research is required. There's every reason to be skeptical of the studies cited by Brian Morris (who seems obsessed with circumcision) and his associates, but we must remember that most of us are not doctors or scientists, so it's imperative that we don't act as such. In short: keep an open mind, but remember your skepticism. Morally and ethically, the answer is simple. But scientifically, it's out of our hands.

I'm getting out of this group. I'm sorry so many of you were hurt, but it is not ok to support racism mysogony and xenophobia. If there is one reason NOT to ever circumcize anybody, it is so that nobody ends up as crass, selfish, ignorant, and hateful as some of the people in the intactivist community. I have seen many of you make hate your spouse, and it makes me sad that you have no trust or compassion. They truly did a number on you boys. I'll still gonna fight for it to stop. But I can't do it in a group that hates me. So get fucked if you can. Peace.

"Your enemy, the devil, is stalking around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour."

you are tied up , from birth, so the devil is free to roam

you are tied up from male genital mutilation

so the devil is free to roam

but imagine from birth...

There is no such thing as "bad luck" it is all this same curse.

women overwhelmingly prefer circumcised penises even in countries where circumcision is very uncommon and women have been established to be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong as well as to be entitled to sexual turn-ons, no matter the cost.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523040/

the drop in circumcision rates has already cost billions to US healthcare. only disaster awaits if the rates drop to levels as low as europe's (you know, the place where healthcare costs half as much per capita as in the USA, is free at the point of service and achieves much better outcomes).

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/declining_rates_of_us_infant_male_circumcision_could_add_billions_to_health_care_costs_experts_warn

same thing

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274944#-The-cost-of-circumcision-versus-the-cost-of-treatment-

finally, we all know how the beauty ideal oppresses women, right? well, since it's imposed by the patriarchy, which is men, then it's only fair men help women cope with it by donating their foreskins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OXQY8dqsPc

we must come to terms with the fact that our foreskins aren't as important as the economy or women's sexual gratification and therefore accept to offer them as tributes. think of it as a ritual sacrifice. hey, some aztecs had it worse, or would you rather they ripped your heart out, hmm?

also, we're antiscience

https://bigthink.com/health/defying-science-american-parents-reject-male-circumcision/

bigthink repeats the notion that intact penises are a drain on the economy

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/falling-circumcision-rates-could-cost-44-billion-in-health-costs/

Long time intactivist here who advocates against GM for all genders. I’ve been reading posts in this group for a while, and have been a little surprised about the overall focus on the GM of children, and a lot of folks acting as though children are the only victims of GM in western medicine.

It’s been a little disheartening for me to witness an absence of discussion of FGM of non-consenting adult women in this sub, so I feel compelled to ask a few questions of folks in this community:

1. What are your perceptions of the ways in which non-consenting adult women are the victims of FGM in western medicine?

2. What do you perceive the frequency of such FGM to be?

3. How prevalent do you think it is compared to MGM of non-consenting adult men?

4. What can be done to highlight and combat the current risks adult women face in terms of becoming the victims of FGM without consent at the hand of doctors in western medicine?

I think it is hypocritical to be against infant circumcision but not against animal abuse.

A circumcision is intentional violence against a innocent helpless baby done for trivial reasons that will result in that baby feeling lots of pain (unless anesthetic is used) and will result in that baby being able to feel less pleasure in the future.

Slaughtering/castrating/debeaking/etc a farm animal is intentional violence against an innocent helpless animal often done for trivial reasons(taste pleasure in many cases) that will result in the animal feeling lots of pain(Unless it is a painless slaughter or mutilation) and will result in the animal being able to feel less or no pleasure in the future.

That along with "name the trait"(search it on YouTube), "watch daminain dot org" and searching "DIY pig castration" on youtube(reminds me of circumcision a lot) is my secular arguments.

My other argument is a religious one based on my faith. I do no believe in Abrahamic religions for obvious reasons. I do believe in eastern religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism(I am still undecided on exactly which one though for the purposes of this post it does not matter since all three are against circumcision and would also say paying for a chicken to be tortured in a factory farm when you could easily buy lentils instead is immoral) and these religions say the violence of factory farming billions of animals to death is immoral and circumcising hundreds of thousands of babies each year is morally abhorrent.

EDIT: alright, nevermind. you guys in the comments have a point. if you want to see what the post was, continue reading.

"every time someone posts about fgm anywhere on the internet, they are swarmed with comments about mgm. "oH bUt wHaT aBoUT mALe cIRCuMCiSiON". come on guys, we can do better than this. it's not like when someone posts about mgm, everyone swarms and goes "wHaT aBouT fEmALe ciRCuMCisION". genital mutilation is genital mutilation. we are all in this together, male, female, and intersex. we need to respect each other more."

So I was researching the link between circumcision and Autism (The study I was looking at claims there's a link, along with other mental disorders which we haven't done further research on so this in itself is NOT conlusive in anyway) This is an interesting topic because why is the ratio for male-female autism in the US estimated as high at 4-1 and as low as 2-1? In hispanic Countries that don't practice RIC, the ratio is reported at very close to 1-1. If there is any link between the 2, you'd think we'd want to contribute atleast a small amount of research to comfirm if this is the case, increasing the risk of condemning our own children to a life of the isolation and difficulties associated with Autism and mental illness seems like something we would be interested in when making this decision. The lack of studies in general is baffling. I'd like to hope parents would care if there was a 106% increase in the risk of Autism as this study from Denmark suggests (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530408/.)

Yet, I've never once heard it mentioned in my life. I DONT think circumcision can increase risk of Autism, but I surely would like to know for sure with more studies and it's curious to me why there is no interest in other comfirmatory stuides such as Frisch and Simonson suggest "confirmatory studies should be given priority. "

Are other possible causes contributing to the increased autism rate found in boys in US compared to hispanic Countries (I really hope circumcision is not a link at all, which I'm sure is the case, it's a hard pill to swallow if so for all those suffering from the disorder needlessly) and find any further data, information, research, or reason as to why there is such a lack of it, as I could not find much especially any recent studies on the topic.

Hell, there seems to be a lack of studies and care about the topic of circumcision in general, please correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone could shed light on why this study is illegitamite enough to not merit any follow up studies, so I can rest assured, would be greatly appreciated.

It's strange to me, the Anti Vax movement which was sparked by a single study, instantly blew up and was debunked with study after study. Where this one is just asking for more comfirmatory studies only a single rebuttle was written after 8 years later by Brian Morris nonetheless, a clearly biased source. Frisch and Simonson even debunk his reply "Morris and Wiswell claim that our study was ‘flawed’, but they do not provide relevant reasons for concern that were not already addressed in our original study." and the fact some of his points do not even pertain to the topic at question. Even intactivists are getting defensive at the thought of simply suggesting further study for some reason.

We cannot give that antisemitic idiot the light of day. We all know that if he's against circumcision, it won't be for bodily autonomy reasons. It will be out of hatred of Jewish people.

There are so many reasons why circumcision is so horrible that aren't antisemitic. Knowing Kanye, he's going to take an antisemitic approach to this. If he makes an anti-circumcision message, it's going to be filled with antisemitism. So don't share it here.

The same goes for Nick Fuentes. We cannot give him the light of day either.

Update: The comment section made me so miserable. There is just so much hate in here against jews. I feel so hopeless just knowing that there are so many antisemites commenting. I'm worried intactivism will be labeled a hate group soon.

For all of you calling out the antisemites for the hateful bigots that they are, shout out to you. You are great people.

For all of the antisemites on here defending Kanye West,🖕

I know it may vary between people, but is intactivism itself right wing or left wing?