# The whole discourse on circumcision is fucked up.



## Certified_Autist (May 1, 2022)

Rate me autistic or MOTI if you like.

Many men are subject to genital mutilation at birth. If they speak out about it, they are often mocked or made fun of. It is disgusting that male genital mutilation is so casually accepted when there are literally no valid arguments for it.



> "removing 80% of the nerves in the penis and destroying the penis' ability to self lubricate has zero effect on sensitivity, and anyone saying otherwise is wrong"


People actually try to claim this, and at that point its just cope/denial because anyone with a brain can see that removing the majority of nerves and removing self-lubrication will negatively affect sensitivity.



> "removing the foreskin makes the penis cleaner and leads to lower rates of STDs"


Following this logic, if a body part might maybe cause a problem in the future, or require cleaning, then its totally justified to remove it no matter the consequences.

If you removed all your teeth you would have a lower rate of cavities and gum disease, right? But its ok because your breath won't stink, right?

You wouldn't have to worry about athlete's foot if you just removed your feet, right? But it's ok because your feet won't stink, right?

Its the same logic used to justify male genital mutilation.



> "Removing the foreskin makes it look better"


Totally subjective, and not a good reason to destroy half the natural function of the dick

Circumcision should be banned. Its disgusting and there's no reason for it to exist. If you're a child, you should not be genitally mutilated when you have no ability to consent. If you are an adult and you want genital mutilation, you are in the same category as the trannies and deserve to be locked in the asylum with them. 

That's my opinion and I stand by it.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 1, 2022)

That's a way of genital cutting cultures to not accept their mistakes, they lie about information and try to appease these aspects saying that they are morally correct by doing them, using for example the sexual act which isn't bad on the first place to replicate this aspect and continue the cycle, judaism is reflected on this just like most modern places where it's practiced, even if that thing wasn't original on the first place.

Genital cutting reflects to the desire to control people, this is the reason it's done on both sexes and refrains these aspects as positive, it's something very destructive that ironically causes problem in accepting our sexuality, self respect and many other things which get reflected on it, even more when it doesn't solve this problem, just destroys the quality of life by trying to destroy something which wasn't broken.

It incredibly can warp around other cultures when you lie about those aspects, which is the thing that creates people who follow the same ideals and try to show them as superior, even if they have the same origin and wrongs, the simple act of reflecting these values undervalues respect and generates people who try to control normal sexual behavior or misunderstand sex (by believing that it doesn't have a social aspects, that it has an only purpose of reproduction, that abusing others in those relationships is fine, that you need it as a measure instead of a self respecting act for all of the close relationship with one person and more aspects which are broken with it, trying to make it wicked on the first place, something that reflects an involution, the destruction of self respect and the destruction of sexuality on almost all people, something that affects everyone), they live on a culture where they don't understand their organs, so they cannot have real aspects around the function of them.

Now i will send a cool video to see this issue at hand, it's excellently explained and reflects on all the falacies to justify those aspects, it's an excellent overview material which will make you hate kikes:


----------



## Joe Swanson (May 1, 2022)

In my opinion, there's not a good reason to do it outside of being a Jew. But at the same time, it really isn't a huge deal.


----------



## The Mass Shooter Ron Soye (May 1, 2022)

The Jews got you at birth and you can't do anything about it.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 1, 2022)

Circumcision is fucked up, but the people who make a huge deal out of it tend to be really weird (like, sexual neurotics) and I think that puts people off of listening to them. I think the big thing is that even if reduces penis sensitivity, obviously circumcised men still get enough out of it that they enjoy sex so it's hard to fire people up over a "this really great thing is less great" as opposed to the much more significant pain (as I understand) from female genital mutilation.


Edit: Frankly, I'm more bothered by the existence of declawed cats out there than I am being circumcised.


----------



## Fetish Roulette (May 1, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Circumcision is fucked up, but the people who make a huge deal out of it tend to be really weird (like, sexual neurotics) and I think that puts people off of listening to them. I think the big thing is that even if reduces penis sensitivity, obviously circumcised men still get enough out of it that they enjoy sex so it's hard to fire people up over a "this really great thing is less great" as opposed to the much more significant pain (as I understand) from female genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> Edit: Frankly, I'm more bothered by the existence of declawed cats out there than I am being circumcised.


I agree with you about the cats. What I've never understood though is why some people are all right with neutering their cats but not declawing them- if I had the choice, I'd rather have my fingernails taken away in a painless procedure than my balls. 

I also agree with you that circumcision is fucked up, but that the people who go on about it at length when provoked are autistic. Not to go all /pol/tard on the thread, but I think the reason circumcision is so normalized in (American, at least) society is because it started as a Jewish thing which bled over into culture in a more general sense. If I ever have a son, I'm not going to have him circumcised at the hospital, despite being circumcised myself.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 1, 2022)

Fetish Roulette said:


> I agree with you about the cats. What I've never understood though is why some people are all right with neutering their cats but not declawing them- if I had the choice, I'd rather have my fingernails taken away in a painless procedure than my balls.
> 
> I also agree with you that circumcision is fucked up, but that the people who go on about it at length when provoked are autistic. Not to go all /pol/tard on the thread, but I think the reason circumcision is so normalized in (American, at least) society is because it started as a Jewish thing which bled over into culture in a more general sense. If I ever have a son, I'm not going to have him circumcised at the hospital, despite being circumcised myself.


I didn't want to neuter my cat but when he started pissing on everything it was the only option. Also took all the fire out of him to explore and calmed him down at night when he'd constantly want outside at the queens. It's unfortunate I didn't do it sooner since they say the long life benefits only come if you do it before they mature.

You only care about your balls because you can think like a human. The cat can't miss his sexual urge if he never feels it. The declawing, on the other hand, amounts to amputating a big chunk of each finger (not just nail, but bone too) and removing his self-defense and one of the basic ways he "feels" the world. Cats have a psychological need to scratch.


----------



## Screamer (May 1, 2022)

For an example of how fucked up the discourse is.
A few years back the BBC (or another British TV network) had a documentary about how female genital mutilation is bad. Casually during it at one point someone openly joked male circumcision.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

> Circumcision should be banned. Its disgusting and there's no reason for it to exist. If you're a child, you should not be genitally mutilated when you have no ability to consent. _If you are an adult and you want genital mutilation, you are in the same category as the trannies and deserve to be locked in the asylum with them._


To preface I wholeheartedly agree with the point of this thread, circumcision is genital mutilation and should be looked down upon. It actually became a weird topic of debate for my fiance and I, because I've made it adamantly clear that I will not allow my future son(s), if I even have any, not get the Jew-snip. I don't care if he will be "different looking from his father", I don't care about the "prettiness" of my possible child's genitalia. It should be left the fuck alone, they're just babies.

However, I will bring up the fact that sometimes some _adult_ men are not very lucky in their lives with their intact dicks. Some suffer from phimosis, and while it can be corrected with stretching exercises, sometimes it just isn't enough and those dudes have to worry about getting the snip. I've also heard of some men overproducing smegma and having to deal with general infections due to just how their bodies work (apparently the condition is known as "balanitis"), so those people sometimes are candidates for the snip. So yes, weirdly enough circumcision can have a defining medical reason depending on the dude and what they're personally dealing with.



Fetish Roulette said:


> I agree with you about the cats. What I've never understood though is why some people are all right with neutering their cats but not declawing them- if I had the choice, I'd rather have my fingernails taken away in a painless procedure than my balls.
> 
> I also agree with you that circumcision is fucked up, but that the people who go on about it at length when provoked are autistic. Not to go all /pol/tard on the thread, but I think the reason circumcision is so normalized in (American, at least) society is because it started as a Jewish thing which bled over into culture in a more general sense. If I ever have a son, I'm not going to have him circumcised at the hospital, despite being circumcised myself.


I dunno how or why declawing was brought up in a thread about dick snipping of all things but I'll bite and tell you why you're partially wrong.

Declawing isn't just snipping the nails, a cat's nail is connected to a specific nerve and knuckle in their paws. Declawing a cat is like a Brazilian taking a machete and _*chopping off the first knuckle of every digit on your hands*_. Even after the surgery scars heal, that cat will forever feel pain and will have a higher chance of developing arthritis, nerve tissue damage, paw pad atrophy, bone overgrowth, enhanced aggression, litter box issues, and other possible outcomes that only negatively affect their health. There is literally no reason for it. At least with human male circumcision you can maybe have one of the very few reasons why somebody may need such a procedure in their *adult *life. I will give you a point though, declawing I guess can be equated to _infant_ circumcision considering what I already said, the shit is completely unnecessary.

Oh I kinda want to add this as well, back about the dick snipping. Part of why Americans ended up enamored with circumcision practices were both the "cleanliness" myth and the "attractiveness" myth. I've heard many a time about men wanting their sons to get snipped because they want to make sure they "look exactly like dad" because of self-image bullshit. Dr. Kellogg also played a big role in American circumcision influence as well, as he believed circumcision was necessary to keep men from masturbating.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 1, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> I dunno how or why declawing was brought up in a thread about dick snipping of all things but I'll bite and tell you why you're partially wrong.


Just thrown out as an example of a similar sort of medical procedure that society embraces but is much more awful.

I think the anti-male circumcision movement maybe disadvantages itself by making such a big deal out of circumcision, because it looks unhinged? Generally you wouldn't say something like that, if a thing is wrong it should be shown to the public how wrong it is, but when people compare it to female genital mutilation and all that it just makes what's a very valid complaint (this pointless butchery should be banned) look unreasonable by the flippancy of the comparison, like when animal rights activists piss people off by comparing a slaughterhouse to Auschwitz.


----------



## Toolbox (May 1, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Circumcision is fucked up, but the people who make a huge deal out of it tend to be really weird (like, sexual neurotics) and I think that puts people off of listening to them. I think the big thing is that even if reduces penis sensitivity, obviously circumcised men still get enough out of it that they enjoy sex so it's hard to fire people up over a "this really great thing is less great" as opposed to the much more significant pain (as I understand) from female genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> Edit: Frankly, I'm more bothered by the existence of declawed cats out there than I am being circumcised.


There is still a difference between the people who think it is wrong, and the resident evil circumcision theory level of wackjob mad about it. Honestly, it is less the harm done on a "proper" circumcision, but how easy it is for the procedure to be botched especially since it is done for religious reasons, i.e. not an actual medical professional. The pedo-ey nature of some aspects of it makes me a similar level of sick. Though of course this isn't in all cases of it, and there are proper surgeons who will do it for people. 
I agree, if it is not done wrong, this isn't as bad as FGM, not nearly, and that examples of how much people treat animals like toys to points like this are on a similar level. The amount of things done to various animals is sick. Removal of venom glands in snakes despite that organ growing back, sewing their mouths shut. In dogs, tail docking, ear docking, and in many cases they have their 'thumb' removed despite it, in its proper form, being a part of how dogs balance their lower leg.


----------



## Colon capital V (May 1, 2022)

Despite being cut myself, I never understood the whole "no dick-cheese build-up" argument.

From the way I understand it, if you don't wash your dick enough, you'll get smegma and itchy rashes. But like, doesn't that go for any body parts that needs to be routinely cleaned like armpits, feet, or brushing your teeth before real bad stuff starts to buildup?

I know I'm kinda repeating that one example from OP, but can any uncircumcised-bros enlighten me on if washing your dick is really any different/worse than any other body part that has gross buildup?


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Just thrown out as an example of a similar sort of medical procedure that society embraces but is much more awful.
> 
> I think the anti-male circumcision movement maybe disadvantages itself by making such a big deal out of circumcision, because it looks unhinged? Generally you wouldn't say something like that, if a thing is wrong it should be shown to the public how wrong it is, but when people compare it to female genital mutilation and all that it just makes what's a very valid complaint (this pointless butchery should be banned) look unreasonable by the flippancy of the comparison, like when animal rights activists piss people off by comparing a slaughterhouse to Auschwitz.


I personally don't think the anti-circumcision movement is "unhinged", the points they've made are more than factual, and the data doesn't lie. Honestly that's the thing that gets me when it comes to it, no matter what facts are presented, you're still going to have the idiots crying about "well how will the pee-pee stay clean!?!?" or again, dads wanting their sons to look the same. Once I heard about botched circumcisions I was officially an anti, and then I witnessed newborn babies in the family be forced to undergo such procedures. The crying and the way they tried to cope with that pain sealed the deal for me.



> Colon capital V said:
> 
> 
> > Despite being cut myself, I never understood the whole "no dick-cheese build-up" argument.
> ...


People forget the fact that vaginas also have smegma buildup as well. Genital folds will be genital folds. Pull back the folds whether it's a penis or vagina and you wash. Simple as.

it's not that hard to figure out. it's not like you're cleaning a grease trap at a fast food place.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 1, 2022)

Colon capital V said:


> I know I'm kinda repeating that one example from OP, but can any uncircumcised-bros enlighten me on if washing your dick is really any different/worse than any other body part that has gross buildup?


Second me on this, too, despite being a gurl, 'cause this is a question I've been wondering about for a while now. Like how much more different is the cleaning compared to someone who's cut? Like it's more of a thorough cleaning, right? If the father is circumcised, how could he teach his son(s) about keeping the penis clean if the foreskin's still intact but he hasn't had one since he was eight days old? How _does_ a father even approach his son(s) about genital hygiene anyway? It's not like I'm losing sleep over it, I just can't seem to figure this one out.

Also I don't see how pre-ejaculate is a penis "self-lubricating", honestly. The vagina self-lubricates to first-and-foremost clean itself, and then secondly to help with the friction of the entire shaft so the girl's not being rubbed raw in there. If the foreskin is covering the urethral opening anyway until the foreskin's pulling back from the friction/arousal, then how does it even assist in lubrication for the penis itself? It's not computing for me.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Also I don't see how pre-ejaculate is a penis "self-lubricating", honestly. The vagina self-lubricates to first-and-foremost clean itself, and then secondly to help with the friction of the entire shaft so the girl's not being rubbed raw in there. If the foreskin is covering the urethral opening anyway until the foreskin's pulling back from the friction/arousal, then how does it even assist in lubrication for the penis itself? It's not computing for me.





			https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225416/
		


"The foreskin also protects a man’s female sexual partners, says Denniston. First, an intact penis glides in the foreskin during intercourse, reducing friction. Second, the exposed glans of a circumcised penis becomes coarser over time, a process known as keratinization, and is more abrasive to the internal mucous membrane of the vagina."

“You take the foreskin away and let the glans callus and you end up irritating the hell out of the vaginal mucosa,” says Denniston. “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”

If there is a skin hood over the glans it promotes a moist environment. It technically matches the idea of "self-lubrication" considering what happens to the glans of the penis when there isn't a foreskin.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 1, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> Second, the exposed glans of a circumcised penis becomes coarser over time, a process known as keratinization, and is more abrasive to the internal mucous membrane of the vagina."


Interesting. Is this just due to being exposed to the open air, the acidic vagina being its acidic self, or does age also cause this?



Weed Eater said:


> “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”


I also want to see numbers for what age-group uses lubricants on a more regular basis because menopause in women fucks up how the vagina self-lubricates thanks to hormones becoming demented, and also just age making everything deteriorate.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Interesting. Is this just due to being exposed to the open air, the acidic vagina being its acidic self, or does age also cause this?
> 
> 
> I also want to see numbers for what age-group uses lubricants on a more often basis because menopause in women fucks up how the vagina self-lubricates thanks to hormones becoming demented, and also just age making everything deteriorate.


I feel like I'm PLing talking about this stuff lmfao, but yes keratinization can happen due to just being exposed to air, age, or honestly I think the biggest culprit is circumcised males not using lubricant when they masturbate. Even women are not exempt from doing this. Coarse rubbing on anything whether it's from your clothes or someone's hand (or your own) will cause callusing.

As for age groups? I think it's a good mix. I personally have my own lady problems and sometimes I need that extra help despite being in my early 20s. Birth control is an obvious culprit as well when it comes to womens' unnatural hormone fluctuations now too, considering my own problems I had while on Nexplanon, and the many anecdotes I hear from other women about B.C.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 1, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> I feel like I'm PLing talking about this stuff lmfao, but yes keratinization can happen due to just being exposed to air, age, or honestly I think the biggest culprit is circumcised males not using lubricant when they masturbate. Even women are not exempt from doing this. Coarse rubbing on anything whether it's from your clothes or someone's hand (or your own) will cause callusing.


Condoms could also be the culprit, too (you're supposed to lube it up anyway, but perhaps _both_ the dick and the rubber). So guess the solution is "stop having sex" lol. But this:


Weed Eater said:


> As for age groups? I think it's a good mix. I personally have my own lady problems and sometimes I need that extra help despite being in my early 20s.


My mind runs a mile a minute so this slipped my mind when I was writing my post up there, but yeah, not all women are gushers and it may just be on an individual level for all I know (heard that about birth control, yeah). This is probably why lubricant is more likely to be used (it's sold all over the world and not just here in America) and it's not (just) because the dick is cut. I thought I read somewhere our poor diets might be why this is the case women aren't sopping wet before penetration, but who knows.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Condoms could also be the culprit, too (you're supposed to lube it up anyway, but perhaps _both_ the dick and the rubber). So guess the solution is "stop having sex" lol. But this:


Condoms slipped my mind! You're probably head on with this theory as well. I mean hell if you don't lubricate the inside of the condom as well as the outside you run the risk of friction tearing/snapping that piece of latex anyways.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 1, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> Condoms slipped my mind! You're probably head on with this theory as well. I mean hell if you don't lubricate the inside of the condom as well as the outside you run the risk of friction tearing/snapping that piece of latex anyways.


Once read on Cracked years ago that apparently mentioned something about microscopic cuts from the rubber and it made me go "FUCK THAT SHIT" so fast. So I dunno, maybe our modern birth control practices are what's causing "sexologists" (is that even the proper word for them? lmao) to wonder why the act of sex has "changed" compared to centuries past since no one's using sheepskin or whatever anymore. _I guess_.

I dunno, sounds like everything's just fucked and our genitals have to suffer the consequences.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Once read on Cracked years ago that apparently mentioned something about microscopic cuts from the rubber and it made me go "FUCK THAT SHIT" so fast. So I dunno, maybe our modern birth control practices are what's causing "sexologists" (is that even the proper word for them? lmao) to wonder why the act of sex has "changed" compared to centuries past since no one's using sheepskin or whatever anymore. _I guess_.
> 
> I dunno, sounds like everything's just fucked and our genitals have to suffer the consequences.


Microscopic friction cuts/tears are some of the worst things to exist and I do not wish them on anyone, not even my enemies.


----------



## Dude Christmas (May 1, 2022)

Well circumcision is fucked up, its child abuse, it makes sense it's discussion would be nasty.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 1, 2022)

Circumcision hasn't been a thing for the vast majority of history and in much of the world today.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 1, 2022)

In the end nobody cares. The risks involved are so negligible a drunk rabbi could have done it 2000 years ago, and if it causes any mental/sexual issue then it would have been incredibly easy to prove it in a simple statistical study.
And that's before the weird focus anti-circumcision has against Jews, or sexual hang ups, which don't win them any favour. Or the fact that it's yet another case of giving the government a carte blanche on how to raise your kid (bonus points for giving the ability to the government to ban religious practices).


----------



## Uberpenguin (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Second me on this, too, despite being a gurl, 'cause this is a question I've been wondering about for a while now. Like how much more different is the cleaning compared to someone who's cut? Like it's more of a thorough cleaning, right? If the father is circumcised, how could he teach his son(s) about keeping the penis clean if the foreskin's still intact but he hasn't had one since he was eight days old? How _does_ a father even approach his son(s) about genital hygiene anyway? It's not like I'm losing sleep over it, I just can't seem to figure this one out.


I think maybe you're used to whatever arcane rituals women go through to address their bits.


Spoiler: Gross health class stuff



You've got some dick skin, you slide it back then you wash your dick off. Just like wipe it off or whatever. The area's going to be a bit more tender than for cut dudes, so you won't want to be too rough with it. If you're a really gross bastard and don't shower often there will probably be smegma built up, clean that off. Then you go about your business. Idk, it's a dick, it's not that complicated, I didn't realize anyone's dad had to teach them how to clean their junk, I figured most people puzzled that one out for themselves.

I don't know where pre-ejaculate being self lubrication comes from, I'm fairly certain that's there to clear out the urethral passage to ensure there's nothing in there that's going to interfere with one's swimmers. Even if I'm wrong the idea of it being for the purpose of lubrication would make no sense because pre-ejaculate is just that; unlike women who will, if you're doing your job right, be pretty wet before things go anywhere (lol poor diet. I've always found it wholesome how women try to spare their partner's ego: "No honey, the dryness has nothing to do with your complete lack of assertiveness and emotional intuition, it must just be something I ate") pre-ejaculate is only produced prior to ejaculation which will be well past the point where you'd start needing lubrication.





wtfNeedSignUp said:


> In the end nobody cares. The risks involved are so negligible a drunk rabbi could have done it 2000 years ago, and if it causes any mental/sexual issue then it would have been incredibly easy to prove it in a simple statistical study.
> And that's before the weird focus anti-circumcision has against Jews, or sexual hang ups, which don't win them any favour. Or the fact that it's yet another case of giving the government a carte blanche on how to raise your kid (bonus points for giving the ability to the government to ban religious practices).


Yeah, but if you're circumcised you're going to lose in dick slapping competitions every single time. Plus if you have a foreskin you can make shadow puppets.


----------



## Narutard (May 1, 2022)

I feel like the only reason circumcision is accepted in the US is because boomers were falsely taught it was somehow beneficial, and now those same boomers refuse to acknowledge that what they were taught was wrong.
So as with most things: Old people ruin it with their fake ass hippy mom-science.


Colon capital V said:


> I know I'm kinda repeating that one example from OP, but can any uncircumcised-bros enlighten me on if washing your dick is really any different/worse than any other body part that has gross buildup?


It’s the same as for cutties, only we need to pull the skin back first. Or do cutties not wash their dick or something? I mean, if you ever have “buildup” on your dick, cut or not, it’s a you problem, not a cut/uncut problem.


----------



## CryoRevival #SJ-112 (May 1, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> "different looking from his father"


A culture in which that phrase can exist about father-child penis comparison is one which should be drawn from the earth like venom from a wound.


----------



## JoshPlz (May 1, 2022)

Germany almost banned circumcision of minors, but pussied out after the jews complained.


----------



## Troonos (May 1, 2022)

It is pure, barbaric evil. I've witnessed it first-hand countless times, and I'll never forget the screaming. Not crying, but screaming that rivals cartel execution videos. It should be banned, and the most common reason people want it done is essentially sexualizing a newborn's genitals ("I just want my child's penis to look nice.") Gross.


----------



## Drkinferno72 (May 1, 2022)

Never got the "it looks better"  "and wanting their d to look like dad's" argument

Who's looking and why??


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 1, 2022)

Troonos said:


> It is pure, barbaric evil.


I never liked the idea of it either, and it's really odd how such a prudish country like America would even make it an issue.

Also if one believes in it for religious reasons, then why would God even create the foreskin in the first place?


----------



## Donker (May 1, 2022)

Anyone see the letter that was written by the ADL to I think Greenland when they were about to ban it?

It's the most brazen flexing display of bad faith Jewish Idpol I think I've ever seen.
Its like something Stormfront would have parodied written honestly.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 1, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Condoms could also be the culprit, too (you're supposed to lube it up anyway, but perhaps _both_ the dick and the rubber). So guess the solution is "stop having sex" lol. But this:
> 
> My mind runs a mile a minute so this slipped my mind when I was writing my post up there, but yeah, not all women are gushers and it may just be on an individual level for all I know (heard that about birth control, yeah). This is probably why lubricant is more likely to be used (it's sold all over the world and not just here in America) and it's not (just) because the dick is cut. I thought I read somewhere our poor diets might be why this is the case women aren't sopping wet before penetration, but who knows.


condoms can be put on without retracting the foreskin, it's something which works surprisingly well, removes the development of keratine and can cause more pleasure for both partners. That's the reason most uncut countries use condoms, they can be more pleasurable for both partners thanks to the increased sensibility and work much better thanks to the less abrasive nature of the foreskin.


wtfNeedSignUp said:


> In the end nobody cares. The risks involved are so negligible a drunk rabbi could have done it 2000 years ago, and if it causes any mental/sexual issue then it would have been incredibly easy to prove it in a simple statistical study.
> And that's before the weird focus anti-circumcision has against Jews, or sexual hang ups, which don't win them any favour. Or the fact that it's yet another case of giving the government a carte blanche on how to raise your kid (bonus points for giving the ability to the government to ban religious practices).


There were rules on judaism where if they failed three times the procedure, they wouldn't circumcise a families newborn. They failed a lot of the time, right now it doesn't happen thanks to blood transfusions and more reliable tools, but the act of using a sharp rock/knife to cut someone it's still dangerous and it's ludicrous to say otherwise.

Sexuality it's contrary to circumcision and this procedure destroys all aspects of a person, it isn't right on any aspect and doesn't have any health benefits other than aesthetic aspects, something that it's forbidden on children on the first place, making it illegal would just respect the child and his person, saying otherwise would be like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder because they could use them to kill innocent people, something which wouldn't happen on the first place because most people wouldn't do it and most religious groups don't completely require it.
And even if that was true, it would just remove something that it's completely wrong, even more when it's the normal state where the solution would be doing nothing.
The only thing that would happen would be that hospitals wouldn't give the procedure and that you couldn't have retarded reasons to justify it, something that would be benefital for everyone.

And for mental/the sexuality aspect, extreme pain causes traumas to a kid, the simple act of cutting this sensitive part (which has been proven in real studies) would cause obvious trauma, even more when there's proof that it causes PTSD like effects on teenagers and adults, for the sexuality aspect, it's a part that has extreme functions around sex, lubrication, mutual pleasure and more, destroying it has been shown that it damages sexuality on history, science and much more, you can look at this video to see it:


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 1, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> In the end nobody cares. The risks involved are so negligible a drunk rabbi could have done it 2000 years ago, and if it causes any mental/sexual issue then it would have been incredibly easy to prove it in a simple statistical study.
> And that's before the weird focus anti-circumcision has against Jews, or sexual hang ups, which don't win them any favour. Or the fact that it's yet another case of giving the government a carte blanche on how to raise your kid (bonus points for giving the ability to the government to ban religious practices).


Come to think of it, I've never heard of a rabbi going out and DEMANDING that those Christians cut off their baby's dick skin, or even asking them to.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 1, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Come to think of it, I've never heard of a rabbi going out and DEMANDING that those Christians cut off their baby's dick skin, or even asking them to


There was the whole commandment to have your slaves circumcised though. There are a number of times when a european country tried to make circumcision illegal (denmark, sweden, germany), since medically speaking, the chance of complications is significantly higher than the chance it improves health outcomes (the data for better health outcomes is wafer thin; I've read some of those studies and the ones I have read were atrocious; typically conducted in africa).

But then on the other hand, gentiles don't really cut their dicks in europe, just jews and muslims.

Each time a country tried to make it illegal the holocaust was invoked and the laws were reversed/annuled/cancelled, depending at what stage the jewish lobby had noticed the law.

As a result of its ties to the US, south korea for a while had a very high circumcision rate.



---

As to answer some questions that were asked: 1. an intact dick is easy to wash. It's easier than say putting in or taking out contact lenses, which also involves touching a vulnerable bodypart.

2. Some advice for prospective fathers that were circumcised and didnt pass it on: it's normal and not uncommon for the foreskin to not be retractable before puberty and it's not necessarily phimosis.



Yarp64371234 said:


> And for mental/the sexuality aspect, extreme pain causes traumas to a kid, the simple act of cutting this sensitive part (which has been proven in real studies) would cause obvious trauma, even more when there's proof that it causes PTSD like effects on teenagers and adults, for the sexuality aspect, it's a part that has extreme functions around sex, lubrication, mutual pleasure and more, destroying it has been shown that it damages sexuality on history, science and much more, you can look at this video to see it:


The scientific evidence we have for the mental trauma (nevermind the chance of complications) as a result of circumcision is fairly robust. Infant circumcision leads to a teenager that takes roughly 5x longer to dissipate cortisol (stress hormone) for example.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 1, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> There was the whole commandment to have your slaves circumcised though. There are a number of times when a european country tried to make circumcision illegal (denmark, sweden, germany), since medically speaking, the chance of complications is significantly higher than the chance it improves health outcomes (the data for better health outcomes is wafer thin; I've read some of those studies and the ones I have read were atrocious; typically conducted in africa).
> 
> But then on the other hand, gentiles don't really cut their dicks in europe, just jews and muslims.
> 
> ...


They are normally done with the religious freedom argument, they use the holocaust comparison to just say an example of it, aside from that, most states do it for those aspects of religious freedom and christians/muslims who keep following the practice (even if the books don't say that it should be done).

The other thing doesn't need a lot of investigation, extreme pain = trauma.

I may not like your hypocritical reflections around ideologies, extremely exaggerated conundrums to say retarded shit and your reflection of weird values with aspects which where extremely general (even if kikes aren't saved of this), but this is something i can accept.


----------



## teriyakiburns (May 1, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> Each time a country tried to make it illegal the holocaust was invoked and the laws were reversed/annuled/cancelled, depending at what stage the jewish lobby had noticed the law.


It's more than likely going to become illegal for non-therapeutic purposes in the UK, some time in the next decade, thanks to various cases working their way through the courts. The human rights act put a question over its legality in English law (can't speak for Scotland), but no case has yet reached all the way to the supreme court.

It was effectively banned for most people when the newly formed NHS classed it as a non-therapeutic, meaning it would require private coverage. Private hospitals generally abide by BMA decisions, so they mostly won't perform non-therapeutic circumcisions either.


----------



## Manul Otocolobus (May 1, 2022)

#1 Rule of Biology: "If it didn't serve some kind of purpose, it wouldn't exist, or it would be in the process of disappearing"

The body ditches anything that it doesn't have a use for. So, foreskin is obviously useful for something since it exists and doesn't appear to be going anywhere by itself. If foreskin was like wisdom teeth, we'd be in the process of getting rid of them.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 1, 2022)

teriyakiburns said:


> It's more than likely going to become illegal for non-therapeutic purposes in the UK, some time in the next decade, thanks to various cases working their way through the courts. The human rights act put a question over its legality in English law (can't speak for Scotland), but no case has yet reached all the way to the supreme court.
> 
> It was effectively banned for most people when the newly formed NHS classed it as a non-therapeutic, meaning it would require private coverage. Private hospitals generally abide by BMA decisions, so they mostly won't perform non-therapeutic circumcisions either.


It should, but it will not. Mark my words.

It worked its way through courts in other european countries too. I'd be surprised if UK would manage to make it illegal for even a fortnight.




I think UK has one of the highest circumcision rates in europe, so there will likelu be quite some resistance.


----------



## WickyWickyWoW (May 1, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Circumcision is fucked up, but the people who make a huge deal out of it tend to be really weird (like, sexual neurotics) and I think that puts people off of listening to them. I think the big thing is that even if reduces penis sensitivity, obviously circumcised men still get enough out of it that they enjoy sex so it's hard to fire people up over a "this really great thing is less great" as opposed to the much more significant pain (as I understand) from female genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> Edit: Frankly, I'm more bothered by the existence of declawed cats out there than I am being circumcised.



The being weird thing I think is related to the nature of the topic, face it how often to you discuss dicks with your fellow man outside of a professional medical setting, if your answer is more than zero than you need to stop spending so much time at the gay bar. As a result only places inhabited by weirdos who have trouble socializing like ordinary human beings where anything goes for discussion is the prime hotspots for the circ debate (hence why part of the reason pol is so vehemently anti circumcision). Because of that only people who could easily qualify as weirdos, sexual neurotics, goofballs, and other assorted potential sex pests would be so bold enough to be vocal in a public setting. But that doesnt make their grievances illegitimate, the practice is a borderline atrocity when you get down to it, imagine flaying a newborns finger to remove the fingernail without any form of anesthetic for reasons built on incredibly shoddy medical science that has been out of date for decades. However with the rise of the internet and the existence of europe (people similar to americans who dont cut which makes dialogue easier) the practice is slowly becoming increasingly unpopular, that and the rise of that foregen company who I hope isnt vaporware or snakeoil.

On a side note, anyone know specifically why circ became so massive in the US? I know about kellogg the cereal man but from what I can find out about him he was a fairly minor and almost insignificant figure, if it wasnt for the cereal than he likely would be a footnote of history.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 2, 2022)

WickyWickyWoW said:


> On a side note, anyone know specifically why circ became so massive in the US? I know about kellogg the cereal man but from what I can find out about him he was a fairly minor and almost insignificant figure, if it wasnt for the cereal than he likely would be a footnote of history.


Remember that time in human history (specifically in the western world) where radical surgeries and medical therapies ran rampant? That's why. The "religion" in question that spread it happened to be modernizing medicine. Many prominent doctors aside from Kellogg touted circumcision as a cure for a myriad of different things, from mental illnesses, paralysis, epilepsy, and venereal diseases. The dispute that circumcision would lessen the urge towards masturbation was widely regarded by many medical professionals of the early 19th century, in fact, it was doctor Jonathan Hutchinson who was the leading pioneer in influencing the English for circumcision, which in turn bled through to America. Circumcision didn't just stop at males either, doctors were willing to use their influence to perform clitoridectomies. Surgeon Isaac Baker Brown was the leading "expert" on these practices and also parroted that performing mutilation onto women would cure their own epilepsy, "mania", and other things. 

The most ironic part about a lot of this is how these medical professionals all really believed that masturbation specifically was the root cause to a lot of sickness. Hence why they wanted to mutilate people so badly.


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (May 2, 2022)

Here’s a tip. Cut it out.


----------



## Grub (May 2, 2022)

Imagine having part of your dick cut off because your country has accepted some Jewish penis mutilating ritual as normal.


----------



## Marcus Tullius Cicero (May 2, 2022)

Can't say I have any strong opinions one way or the other, but I will say that it's best to not be overly sensitive on whether you're circumcised or not. I met a man who was and, for whatever reason, he seemed to place his dissatisfaction with being circumcised onto his parents. It struck me as strange, how much he resented their decision, to the point that he almost seemed to hate them for it. I can comprehend not liking what they did, but there's little point in getting upset _decades_ after the fact. So it's best to handle it with some maturity and just opt-out of circumcising your sons, if you ever have any.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> There were rules on judaism where if they failed three times the procedure, they wouldn't circumcise a families newborn. They failed a lot of the time, right now it doesn't happen thanks to blood transfusions and more reliable tools, but the act of using a sharp rock/knife to cut someone it's still dangerous and it's ludicrous to say otherwise.
> 
> Sexuality it's contrary to circumcision and this procedure destroys all aspects of a person, it isn't right on any aspect and doesn't have any health benefits other than aesthetic aspects, something that it's forbidden on children on the first place, making it illegal would just respect the child and his person, saying otherwise would be like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder because they could use them to kill innocent people, something which wouldn't happen on the first place because most people wouldn't do it and most religious groups don't completely require it.
> And even if that was true, it would just remove something that it's completely wrong, even more when it's the normal state where the solution would be doing nothing.
> ...


My point still stands, you could do this shit by an untrained little educated person with a knife with rare complications. Modern day tools and medicine makes the chance to grievous harm basically nill (and yeah, I know there are still cases where the medical team fucks up).

Dude, coomerism is a massive thing this days, regardless of chopped or not, so there is no detriment to sexual activity. Also how you phrase it ss one of the reason why the movement is laughed on - "destroys all aspects of a person". You are circumcised a few days after birth, you do not have any aspect to destroy, you are literally a blank slate. Only if you are talking on the Muslim practice of doing it when a boy goes through 13, but even then most Muslims are functioning members of society (at least when kept to their own countries).

Again, the procedure is done on a days old babies with no ego whatsoever, I'd be massively surprised if someone can have a memory of that far ago (especially after the almost assuredly worse experience of being born). But a lot of people just anesthesia which makes the pain argument moot. A person would not notice the foreskin missing for the same reason they won't notice they are missing wings. They never knew they had it in the first place.

Also I'd rather have actual studies rather than manipulative YouTube videos. But on the argument of damaging sexuality, Europe with a far lower circumcision rate has far lower rate of birth than the USA, which contradicts the argument (in general a cross country comparison is the best way to show a wide spanning effect unless you have something more local that's closer in terms of attirbutes and divide by cut/uncut).


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> My point still stands, you could do this shit by an untrained little educated person with a knife with rare complications. Modern day tools and medicine makes the chance to grievous harm basically nill (and yeah, I know there are still cases where the medical team fucks up).
> 
> Dude, coomerism is a massive thing this days, regardless of chopped or not, so there is no detriment to sexual activity. Also how you phrase it ss one of the reason why the movement is laughed on - "destroys all aspects of a person". You are circumcised a few days after birth, you do not have any aspect to destroy, you are literally a blank slate. Only if you are talking on the Muslim practice of doing it when a boy goes through 13, but even then most Muslims are functioning members of society (at least when kept to their own countries).
> 
> ...


It isn't the ego retard, but the traumatic damage that a baby has by the simple act of causing a traumatic procedure which causes a lot of pain, this aren't bad arguments when the video explains why with real information and studies which are cited in it, they aren't ramblings, you would have seen the studies if you cared to watch it.

And including with this, even with anesthetics, the pain is still felt, this can be seen on the traumatic reaction (which is still painful by not putting complete anesthetic around it) and because the part is so complex that putting anesthetic won't matter, even more when you shouldn't do it on the first place.

The effect is in the subconscious, which is the reason it causes an increased stress response, even more when babies feel the pain on an increased manner in comparison to adults.

Aside from this, europe has a lower birth rate because they use more protection, which reflects on using condoms by not damaging their sensitivity, having less erection problems and because they are more strict around money, causing them to not have as many kids on the first place, the us has higher birth rates thanks to that aspect of not using protection and monetary aspects, which is the same reason they have higher stds.

The fact that you tried to dismiss the sensitivity of it is really funny tho, even if there's historic proof, studies and much more which say that it's a sensitive part.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> It isn't the ego retard, but the traumatic damage that a baby has by the simple act of causing a traumatic procedure which causes a lot of pain, this aren't bad arguments when the video explains why with real information and studies which are cited in it, they aren't ramblings, you would have seen the studies if you cared to watch it.
> 
> And including with this, even with anesthetics, the pain is still felt, this can be seen on the traumatic reaction (which is still painful by not putting complete anesthetic around it) and because the part is so complex that putting anesthetic won't matter, even more when you shouldn't do it on the first place.
> 
> ...


Dude, I've been circumcised and everyone I know is has been as well. I've never in my life heard anyone talk about circumcision as having any impact because the age when it's been done is before you have any grasp on the world and your own body. The only ones who talk about it are mothers.

If the argument is that the procedure is doing major long lasting harm then that would be easily apperant by comparison between societies that snip and not (if the difference is not noticeable then that's not enough to justify such argument). Any other argument is pointless since it's just an emotional "you are causing pain to a baby!", Which is obvious but inconsequential.

If you want to pull a "1 in 1000 will maybe have long lasting harm, so that's why fuck your religious freedom and rights as parents!", then congratulations on being a tranny.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> And including with this, even with anesthetics, the pain is still felt





Yarp64371234 said:


> The effect is in the subconscious, which is the reason it causes an increased stress response, even more when babies feel the pain on an increased manner in comparison to adults.


My grandmother always told me she knew me since I was 20 minutes old. She and Papa looked through the glass to where I was laying in the bassinet all pink and just staring up at the ceiling calm and quiet, and they watched as a nurse came in and stuck an injection into my leg and then I was crying my lungs out and didn't stop crying until I was fed. Gee, maybe that explains why me and a lot of kids don't like needles. Clearly we need to ban giving infants vaccinations because it causes pain and discomfort and endless crying and no one likes that.

How _do_ we know that the agonizing effects of circumcision is really and truly still felt well into adulthood? Aren't the results already tainted with bias because someone was looking into it with circumcision on the mind and decided those numbers _had_ to be due to some eight-day-old somehow having subconscious remembrance of pain--never mind that babies don't have the cognitive ability to understand what pain is and how it happens that early, it's all kneejerk reflexes the body just naturally has. Do you know of any male toddler whose first words out of their mouths were akin to "Pee-pee hurts" as a response to circumcision to therefore prove that that's all circumcised male children think about as a result of such trauma?

I just want to know how old every single man was when they started thinking about their cut dicks and decrying to their parents "You took my foreskin!" Something tells me teenagers don't actually really care if they have foreskin or not just as long as things feel good, but because being horny makes teenagers so fucking dumb they tend to go overboard with their masturbation habits and injure themselves but they don't want to stop playing with themselves, or _can't_. This may or may not be related to however they were taught sex ed, if at all. I'm getting so many conflicting reports about this from both sides that at this point the only person's opinion I care about over this is my fiancé's and he doesn't have a problem with it, being circumcised himself and not ever thought once about it until asked. (I'd get my brothers' thoughts on this, but it's super-duper fucking weird for a sister to ask her brothers for their thoughts on if they ever once got hung up on their cut dicks.)


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Dude, I've been circumcised and everyone I know is has been as well. I've never in my life heard anyone talk about circumcision as having any impact because the age when it's been done is before you have any grasp on the world and your own body. The only ones who talk about it are mothers.
> 
> If the argument is that the procedure is doing major long lasting harm then that would be easily apperant by comparison between societies that snip and not (if the difference is not noticeable then that's not enough to justify such argument). Any other argument is pointless since it's just an emotional "you are causing pain to a baby!", Which is obvious but inconsequential.
> 
> If you want to pull a "1 in 1000 will maybe have long lasting harm, so that's why fuck your religious freedom and rights as parents!", then congratulations on being a tranny.


Because they don't know the effects. if they did they would see the difference they would have the need to see the effect it causes, something which isn't even explained or shown on the first place, even more when the pain is still there on most of them due to them being botched, the only reason they don't say you anything is because it's something personal, nothing else.

Even with this, yes, even more when the foreskin has a ton of positive aspects, it's the act of damaging an organ just like cutting the ears because it looks fine, it shouldn't be done to anyone, even more when it violates their religious freedoms to do those choices which nearly no one would do.

You can see the effect of the procedure on the sexual american act and some behaviors of US people, it's something that can be seen with enough time and denying it is really retarded.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> My grandmother always told me she knew me since I was 20 minutes old. She and Papa looked through the glass to where I was laying in the bassinet all pink and just staring up at the ceiling calm and quiet, and they watched as a nurse came in and stuck an injection into my leg and then I was crying my lungs out and didn't stop crying until I was fed. Gee, maybe that explains why me and a lot of kids don't like needles. Clearly we need to ban giving infants vaccinations because it causes pain and discomfort and endless crying and no one likes that.
> 
> How _do_ we know that the agonizing effects of circumcision is really and truly still felt well into adulthood? Aren't the results already tainted with bias because someone was looking into it with circumcision on the mind and decided those numbers _had_ to be due to some eight-day-old somehow having subconscious remembrance of pain--never mind that babies don't have the cognitive ability to understand what pain is and how it happens that early, it's all kneejerk reflexes the body just naturally has. Do you know of any male toddler whose first words out of their mouths were akin to "Pee-pee hurts" as a response to circumcision to therefore prove that that's all circumcised male children think about as a result of such trauma?
> 
> I just want to know how old every single man was when they started thinking about their cut dicks and decrying to their parents "You took my foreskin!" Something tells me teenagers don't actually really care if they have foreskin or not just as long as things feel good, but because being horny makes teenagers so fucking dumb they tend to go overboard with their masturbation habits and injure themselves but they don't want to stop playing with themselves, or _can't_. This may or may not be related to however they were taught sex ed, if at all. I'm getting so many conflicting reports about this from both sides that at this point the only person's opinion I care about over this is my fiancé's and he doesn't have a problem with it, being circumcised himself and not ever thought once about it until asked. (I'd get my brothers' thoughts on this, but it's super-duper fucking weird for a sister to ask her brothers for their thoughts on if they ever once got hung up on their cut dicks.)


the difference is that needles don't cause extreme pain by removing a sensitive part, are done in one second and are needed, circumcision doesn't comply with any of this.

They don't care about their sex organ because they don't have the information and because they aren't in puberty and don't think about it, even then, most kids react to it by crying a lot and losing the breastfeeding input, something that reflects it, even more when there are cases where people fell those aspects by the basis of erection or general damage which makes them suffer.

You have literal 80s ideas of baby pain, it's in fact the opposite, babies don't feel less pain, they feel more and suffer more through it.

The act of justifying this shit as a neutral basis when it isn't useful reflects around this shit, the effects are normally stress related and can be seen on a lot of cases some seconds after with the breastfeeding example and much more, it's extremely simple, extreme pain= trauma, the pain is extreme it will cause it, the same would happen if someone arm was cut off in infancy.

It's like seeing without glasses and getting them after not seeing with them, you can think that your vision it's normal, even more when you were damaged when you were little, but the effect is there and you cannot see it thanks to that bias.

Just don't do it in your kids, just like you don't do female circumcision by any basis, even more when they are identical.

And again, you can see the video from the first post, it really explains any doubts and will let you see those aspects.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> It's like seeing without glasses and getting them after not seeing with them, you can think that your vision it's normal, even more when you were damaged when you were little, but the effect is there and you cannot see it thanks to that bias.


You lost me here with this analogy because I've been wearing glasses since I was five midway through kindergarten but I legit don't remember what the world was like for me without glasses, and my eyesight has gotten steadily worse since then anyway because my eyes are just fucked in general. Maybe if I ever suck it up and get Lasik this analogy will make sense because my memory's sharper as an adult compared to my toddler years.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> You lost me here with this analogy because I've been wearing glasses since I was five midway through kindergarten but I legit don't remember what the world was like for me without glasses, and my eyesight has gotten steadily worse since then anyway because my eyes are just fucked in general. Maybe if I ever suck it up and get Lasik this analogy will make sense because my memory's sharper as an adult compared to my toddler years.


that's the meaning of the analogy.

you won't know how it was to have normal eyes unless you get corrective lenses, if you didn't had them you would think that the way you see it's normal and everyone has it for that reason.

The same is with circumcision, even with this, it's even worse because it's surgically done and destroys the body part, it would be more like cutting your eyes and believing that everyone doesn't see because they don't say to you that you are blind.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> Because they don't know the effects. if they did they would see the difference they would have the need to see the effect it causes, something which isn't even explained or shown on the first place, even more when the pain is still there on most of them due to them being botched, the only reason they don't say you anything is because it's something personal, nothing else.
> 
> Even with this, yes, even more when the foreskin has a ton of positive aspects, it's the act of damaging an organ just like cutting the ears because it looks fine, it shouldn't be done to anyone, even more when it violates their religious freedoms to do those choices which nearly no one would do.
> 
> You can see the effect of the procedure on the sexual american act and some behaviors of US people, it's something that can be seen with enough time and denying it is really retarded.


Who are they that suffer from phantom foreskin syndrome? 10%, 1%, 0.1%? You also keep saying effects but besides an argument of less enjoyment from touching yourself there's nothing. You keep trying to compare this to removing major organs and that's completely dishonest. I don't use my dick to travel the world and learn new things (unless I feel extra adventurous). It's more of a comparison of being with and without an appendix.

Please enlighten us how removing the foreskin has changed an act that can be summed up as "put penis in vag". Or changing general behaviour.


----------



## Neurotypical Mantis (May 2, 2022)

if it ain't broke, don't cut it off


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> My point still stands


Does it though?


----------



## GoysGoneWild (May 2, 2022)

The whole thing is absolutely fucked. I think its just as much a mental disability or illness for people at this point as it is physical. Good points OP - the copes out there for doing this or having this done are disgusting.

Like, just accept you got a horrific brand as a jewish slave at birth. That fucking sucks, but the healthy response to that is anger and a desire to stamp the practice out permanently, not pathetic copes.

Thankfully all the signs in my life point to the practice slowly dying out. Most women, when this has come up, have expressed a desire to not do it to their potential sons. Some quite vociferously and angrily. Fuck yeah, good for them. Its actually cutfags that seem to be the ones coping about it - "theres nothing wrong with my dick!". Man up asshole. Easy for me to say as a pure uncut antisemite, I know, but still I can't imagine letting my personal desire to make myself feel better about my artificial hebrew dong turn into letting (((medical professionals))) cut up my sons dick for their ancient demonic practices.


----------



## Return of the Freaker (May 2, 2022)

If there was a guaranteed way to restore your foreskin with minimal to no side effects I would do it in a heartbeat. That said, I don't understand people who, instead of coping about "its totally normal roasties want cut", seethe at their parents and act like their life has been destroyed. Then again, they're probably massive autists anyway. Can't change the past, just don't snip your sons


----------



## Drkinferno72 (May 2, 2022)

Daily reminder that the only reason Americans practice circumcision iz because the Kellogg's guy was paranoid that boys were masturbating


----------



## tijuana gay hookers (May 2, 2022)

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:


> The Jews got you at birth and you can't do anything about it.


I can speak rather confidently I am circumcised because of Christianity rather than Judaism. There was something uniquely special about the American brand of Protestantism that made circumsion commonplace.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (May 2, 2022)

I was circumcised when i was 2 years old for having a strange pattern of a big foreskin, not even pulling back the gland can come out entirely. Peeing was horrible.
But more than that, i can self-lubricate (if pre-cum enters in that definition) without problems.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Who are they that suffer from phantom foreskin syndrome? 10%, 1%, 0.1%? You also keep saying effects but besides an argument of less enjoyment from touching yourself there's nothing. You keep trying to compare this to removing major organs and that's completely dishonest. I don't use my dick to travel the world and learn new things (unless I feel extra adventurous). It's more of a comparison of being with and without an appendix.
> 
> Please enlighten us how removing the foreskin has changed an act that can be summed up as "put penis in vag". Or changing general behaviour.


the ear comparison was pretty good, you can live with ears, but you will lose problems down the line, whiwch was the thing i was talking about.

it would be like an appendix if the foreskin didn't had an extra sensitivity, if it was much smaller and if didn't make the sexual act worse.

removing it changes the functions of sex, instead of short strokes and closer stimulation, you get a fast act where lubrication is swipped off and where there isn't a tact on it

"Few parts of the human anatomy can compare to the incredibly multifaceted nature of the human foreskin. At times dismissed as “just skin,” the adult foreskin is, in fact, a highly vascularized and densely innervated bilayer tissue, with a surface area of up to 90 cm, and potentially larger. On average, the foreskin accounts for 51% of the total length of the penile shaft skin and serves a multitude of functions. The tissue is highly dynamic and biomechanically functions like a roller bearing; during intercourse, the foreskin “unfolds” and glides as abrasive friction is reduced and lubricating fluids are retained. The sensitive foreskin is considered to be the primary erogenous zone of the male penis and is divided into four subsections: inner mucosa, ridged band, frenulum, and outer foreskin; each section contributes to a vast spectrum of sensory pleasure through the gliding action of the foreskin, which mechanically stretches and stimulates the densely packed corpuscular receptors. Specialized immunological properties should be noted by the presence of Langerhans cells and other lytic materials, which defend against common microbes, and there is robust evidence supporting HIV protection. The  glans and inner mucosa are physically protected against external irritation and contaminants while maintaining a healthy, moist surface. The foreskin is also immensely vascularized and acts as a conduit for essential blood vessels within the penis, such as supplying the glans via the frenular artery."

The effect is really strong, the only reason that there isn't anything around it is because there aren't any study comparison, even with this, in small surveys, circumcision has been shown to cause an experience that causes a lof of problems and it's less pleasurable than a male that has a foreskin.


----------



## Clown Baby (May 2, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> People forget the fact that vaginas also have smegma buildup as well. Genital folds will be genital folds. Pull back the folds whether it's a penis or vagina and you wash. Simple as.


Men can't be trusted to rinse a dish before putting it in the dishwasher, you expect me to believe they thoroughly clean inside their penis sheaths? The vagina doesn't get smegma in it, because the vagina is completely self-cleaning. If any sort of gunk builds up in women's genitals it would be around the vulva aka the "lips." Comparing pussy lips, which are wide open with a quick spread of the legs and easily cleaned, to an uncut dick, which is fully encased in a hideous slug-like flesh trap that has to be peeled like a banana and hosed out every day or else get filled with literal cheese, I'm fucking cackling.

Circumcision has become common practice outside of religious obligation because it reduces infection. Uncircumcised men and boys have a higher risk for UTIs, kidney infection, yeast infection, and something called balanitis, which is basically an infected dickhead from being dirty. Men with cut dicks don't have to worry about any of these problems. Doctors cut dicks at birth because no one trusts men to clean anything properly. Simple as.


----------



## Catch The Rainbow (May 2, 2022)

From Maimonides, one of the most important Jewish commentators:



> Part 3 chapter 49 in the guide for the perplexed:
> Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. _The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision._



Personally I don't think it should be legal outside of medical/cultural reasons. However it doesn't affect me during sex and saying it could be better is like telling a blind man about the color red. I know on a conceptual level that I could feel more pleasure but honestly I don't really care and neither does any other Jewish guy I know.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> that's the meaning of the analogy.
> 
> you won't know how it was to have normal eyes unless you get corrective lenses, if you didn't had them you would think that the way you see it's normal and everyone has it for that reason.
> 
> The same is with circumcision, even with this, it's even worse because it's surgically done and destroys the body part, it would be more like cutting your eyes and believing that everyone doesn't see because they don't say to you that you are blind.


That literally doesn't make sense comparing having to get corrective lenses for your shitty vision to getting foreskin removed at eight-days-old where you literally do not form long-term memories to even remember the procedure being done to remember the foreskin days and post-foreskin days. You were more on the right path comparing the trauma of weaning a child from breastfeeding with circumcision, but that still's not completely the same because snippets of memory _do_ start to take hold by then (especially if the child has to be forcibly weaned at three like in most cultures, so thank God for breast pumps and bottles to avoid _that_ hassle), and small children rely heavily on the id that they don't think rationally as to _why_ they need to be weaned from the breast.

Honestly, can you cite where you got all your information from? One video is just that: one video. Gonna need more than just a video from some Jew with the last name of "Clopper" whose lawsuit against Harvard got dismissed.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> That literally doesn't make sense comparing having to get corrective lenses for your shitty vision to getting foreskin removed at eight-days-old where you literally do not form long-term memories to even remember the procedure being done to remember the foreskin days and post-foreskin days. You were more on the right path comparing the trauma of weaning a child from breastfeeding with circumcision, but that still's not completely the same because snippets of memory _do_ start to take hold by then (especially if the child has to be forcibly weaned at three like in most cultures, so thank God for breast pumps and bottles to avoid _that_ hassle), and small children rely heavily on the id that they don't think rationally as to _why_ they need to be weaned from the breast.
> 
> Honestly, can you cite where you got all your information from? One video is just that: one video. Gonna need more than just a video from some Jew with the last name of "Clopper" whose lawsuit against Harvard got dismissed.





			https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
		

my point is that you cannot compare the pleasure of something if you didn't had it on the first place, it has an effect for that reason, saying otherwise with that bias is ridiculous, it would be like thinking that your bad vision is the norm, which was the point i was talking about, even with this, i was talking when the kid is 8 days and start breastfeeding, this is an effect cause by infant circumcision, nothing else.
Even with this, pain affects the mind since the start, even if you aren't completely conscious, you still feel that pain and reflect on that aspect by using a traumatic response in general, even more when kids are more sensitive in general, even the most simple animal reacts to this, it's a basic response to pain, even more when the babies brain is still really developed and can emotionally react on a basic scale, something that is enough to feel that trauma.


----------



## Orbit14k (May 2, 2022)

All of this hand waving about baby being irreversibly scarred over a 20 second surgical removal that happens shortly after the baby had its entire prior entire existence upended in a multi-hour ordeal that involves being squeezed through a 2-10cm hole in such a fashion that it temporarily deforms its skull.

“Trauma”, lol


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Clown Baby said:


> Men can't be trusted to rinse a dish before putting it in the dishwasher, you expect me to believe they thoroughly clean inside their penis sheaths? The vagina doesn't get smegma in it, because the vagina is completely self-cleaning. If any sort of gunk builds up in women's genitals it would be around the vulva aka the "lips." Comparing pussy lips, which are wide open with a quick spread of the legs and easily cleaned, to an uncut dick, which is fully encased in a hideous slug-like flesh trap that has to be peeled like a banana and hosed out every day or else get filled with literal cheese, I'm fucking cackling.
> 
> Circumcision has become common practice outside of religious obligation because it reduces infection. Uncircumcised men and boys have a higher risk for UTIs, kidney infection, yeast infection, and something called balanitis, which is basically an infected dickhead from being dirty. Men with cut dicks don't have to worry about any of these problems. Doctors cut dicks at birth because no one trusts men to clean anything properly. Simple as.


most men clean themselves, it's really uncomfortable to let it for a lot of time and it's something that is easy to clean.

The outer folds aren't the vagina, those parts aren't flushed out and require some water, most women just like men do it reliably and don't have any other problems down the line, so it isn't a problem.

Even more, with circumcision you save one UTI in a sample of 144 kids, the same UTI which is solved with medication and it's weirder on boys on the first place, these things aren't reduced and cutting them isn't a solution, it's more similar to scrapping the skin because someone has an infection in it, even more when the process to evade the infection is just cleaning on the lower part which can be done in 10 seconds, even more when you need months of not taking care of it to get cheese on the first place, and this is with teenagers, the others aren't solved by circumcision and are old myths by the act of trying to find a cure in an useless procedure and are normal symptoms of not cleaning in men and women, they shouldn't destroy functional parts that have a lot of sensitivity, function and benefits around the sexual act.

if someone cannot do that, they have a lot more problems and we shouldn't do public policy around something that doesn't work, it isn't something that should be encouraged.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Orbit14k said:


> All of this hand waving about baby being irreversibly scarred over a 20 second surgical removal that happens shortly after the baby had its entire prior entire existence upended in a multi-hour ordeal that involves being squeezed through a 2-10cm hole in such a fashion that it temporarily deforms its skull.
> 
> “Trauma”, lol


birthing doesn't cause pain to the baby, women has that feeling, you shouldn't downplace that pain, even more when babies have softer bones and have a squashed head for a lot of time for that reason, they are designed to pass through that process, in comparison to circumcision.


----------



## Orbit14k (May 2, 2022)

Are you literally retarded that you just typed that?


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Orbit14k said:


> Are you literally retarded that you just typed that?


no. that's how birthing works.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Dude, I've been circumcised and everyone I know is has been as well. I've never in my life heard anyone talk about circumcision as having any impact because the age when it's been done is before you have any grasp on the world and your own body


I'll remember this argument next time some whiny retards complains about getting molested at a young age. I mean you can't even remember it dipshit, nothing that happens in your early childhood affects you later in life. It's psychology 101 dumbass lmfao



GoysGoneWild said:


> Like, just accept you got a horrific brand as a jewish slave at birth. That fucking sucks, but the healthy response to that is anger and a desire to stamp the practice religion out permanently, not pathetic copes.


ftfy


----------



## Return of the Freaker (May 2, 2022)

tijuana gay hookers said:


> I can speak rather confidently I am circumcised because of Christianity rather than Judaism. There was something uniquely special about the American brand of Protestantism that made circumsion commonplace.


Yeah. Autism



Clown Baby said:


> Men can't be trusted to rinse a dish before putting it in the dishwasher, you expect me to believe they thoroughly clean inside their penis sheaths? The vagina doesn't get smegma in it, because the vagina is completely self-cleaning. If any sort of gunk builds up in women's genitals it would be around the vulva aka the "lips." Comparing pussy lips, which are wide open with a quick spread of the legs and easily cleaned, to an uncut dick, which is fully encased in a hideous slug-like flesh trap that has to be peeled like a banana and hosed out every day or else get filled with literal cheese, I'm fucking cackling.
> 
> Circumcision has become common practice outside of religious obligation because it reduces infection. Uncircumcised men and boys have a higher risk for UTIs, kidney infection, yeast infection, and something called balanitis, which is basically an infected dickhead from being dirty. Men with cut dicks don't have to worry about any of these problems. Doctors cut dicks at birth because no one trusts men to clean anything properly. Simple as.


Ok kosher roastie


----------



## Unyielding Stupidity (May 2, 2022)

There isn't a health benefit to circumcision, unless you consider Americans being too fat to reach their dicks and clean them a reason. Reminder that circumcision is the main reason why American men need to use lube when masturbating.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> I'll remember this argument next time some whiny retards complains about getting molested at a young age. I mean you can't even remember it dipshit, nothing that happens in your early childhood affects you later in life. It's psychology 101 dumbass lmfao


What a retarded comparison, having a well know medical process when you are days old, with anasthesia doesn't equal getting molested after having an ego while fully realizing of your own powerlessness, grow up.


Yarp64371234 said:


> the ear comparison was pretty good, you can live with ears, but you will lose problems down the line, whiwch was the thing i was talking about.
> 
> it would be like an appendix if the foreskin didn't had an extra sensitivity, if it was much smaller and if didn't make the sexual act worse.
> 
> ...


So this is entirely revolves around coomerism then. Which, even without the infamy of the mindset makes the argument pointless since people will find a lot of shit to get sexual urges over (sometimes literally) and over exposure to sex will make you seek higher extreme. Also you'd be hard pressed (pun unintended) to get an apt comparison considering the myriad of reasons people can enjoy sex from.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> What a retarded comparison, having a well know medical process when you are days old, with anasthesia doesn't equal getting molested after having an ego while fully realizing of your own powerlessness, grow up.


Sexual reassignment surgery is a "well known medical process", what's your fucking point? Does that make it ok to do to kids? And way to dodge the point, by this reasoning molesting a newborn straight from the womb is a-ok because they're ego hasn't developed yet. You're essentially giving carte blanche to do whatever you want to a baby so long as they're young enough. Commit to it pussy, argue that nothing done to a newborn can traumatize them. Otherwise fuck off.

Why are you so defensive over mutilating baby dicks? Why does the mere suggestion that chopping off a babies sensitive body parts might give them long term psychological trauma piss you off?



wtfNeedSignUp said:


> So this is entirely revolves around coomerism then.


You're fucking insane. Might as well defend chopping off clits too since the only argument against that is "coomerism". Obviously no one but degenerate coomers care about their inability to experience sexual pleasure.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> What a retarded comparison, having a well know medical process when you are days old, with anasthesia doesn't equal getting molested after having an ego while fully realizing of your own powerlessness, grow up.
> 
> So this is entirely revolves around coomerism then. Which, even without the infamy of the mindset makes the argument pointless since people will find a lot of shit to get sexual urges over (sometimes literally) and over exposure to sex will make you seek higher extreme. Also you'd be hard pressed (pun unintended) to get an apt comparison considering the myriad of reasons people can enjoy sex from.


it's the integrity aspect. even if that shit wasn't true you wouldn't have the need to circumcise. i just said more benefits to show you that circumcision is wrong on all aspects, even more when it makes for a better social bonding between mates and helps evade damages, which is a good thing that is helpful and reflects on a better state of life, saying otherwise is justifying an abuse which damages people, which is the thing that you are doing, even more when the pain is still there after anesthetics, which i have explained before.


----------



## Kari Kamiya (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page


Lmao wikis don't count as citations. Give me _actual_ medical citations. Here's an example of how you do it:









						What's the deal with male circumcision and female cervical cancer?
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				




Which has links to:
Effect of Male Circumcision on the Prevalence of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in Young Men: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa

Effect of circumcision of HIV-negative men on transmission of human papillomavirus to HIV-negative women: a randomised trial in Rakai, Uganda.

Now yes, the foreskin _itself_ doesn't cause the cancer, but if hygiene is not properly practiced and men keep sleeping around, the bacteria/viruses/nasty shit that got trapped in the foreskin get transferred over to the woman during intercourse, which _will _cause infections. That risk is lowered in circumcised men since there's less crevices for bacteria to get lodged in, though it's not 100% absolute.

It's not just the men being affected by this, women's health has to also be considered because if their dumbass man doesn't properly take care of himself, she suffers some real nasty consequences. Sex ed I bet doesn't go into detail about this; hell, lots of women don't know about their own bodies, so of course there's no way they'd know anything about men's hygiene and if the penis, the foreskin especially if the man is uncut, is completely clean if they're not using condoms.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

"certified autism"
Username checks out

I am not pro-curcumsicision, btw, I think it's a bit fucked up to do it.

Nobody does it besides practicing Jews and Muslims ( ie religious people. taking life lessons from some dusty old book, it's that kind of can of old worms) and  Americans  (who take more life lessons from the jews and muslims that they would led you to believe apparently  )

It's just that men who are loud about missing their foreskin are weird about it.

As for HPV cancer, there's a preventive vaccine against it. Some countries vaccinate all their youth, including young men. Ask a doctor about it, you can get it at any age even if it's considered more effective to do it while a virgin or into your early years of sexual activities.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> You're fucking insane. Might as well defend chopping off clits too since the only argument against that is "coomerism". Obviously no one but degenerate coomers care about their inability to experience sexual pleasure.


Not even truth. Clitorises are good for childbearing and to evade incontinence, just like the foreskin, it does a lot of stuff and you wouldn't want to cut it on the first place, this is the reason that women where clit chopping is common get more incontinence problems than other countries where they don't do it.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Now yes, the foreskin _itself_ doesn't cause the cancer, but if hygiene is not properly practiced and men keep sleeping around, the bacteria/viruses/nasty shit that got trapped in the foreskin get transferred over to the woman during intercourse, which _will _cause infections. That risk is lowered in circumcised men since there's less crevices for bacteria to get lodged in, though it's not 100% absolute.


What's even the point of talking like this? You ensure no one gets various forms of cancer by chopping off all sorts of body parts. Breast cancer is a leading killer, ergo ought to start yeeting the teets right?

No, this is batshit mentally ill reasoning and there's no reason to even humor it.



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> It's just that men who are loud about missing their foreskin are weird about it.


While it's certainly true there's a lot of speds who obsess over it, I implore you to consider which came first. Is there a way for a man to express concern over this issue publicly without coming off as weird? No, it's considered weird for a man to care about this at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy to shame men into being silent.

Says a lot about society, bottom text, etc.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kari Kamiya said:


> Lmao wikis don't count as citations. Give me _actual_ medical citations. Here's an example of how you do it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And guess what? That is solved by cleaning a little bit, if your mate doesn't do that you shouldn't have sex with him.
Aside from this, a wiki with citations and more it's useful information, if it was a wiki where they say that ay lmaos did it to stop you from flying it would be understandable to dismiss it, but if it's a cited source with links that show these studies, reflections and even counter arguments, then it's a valid source of information.

Even more when the studies that you are linking are flawed and reflect on retarded shit, the ugandan study has too many flaws to count (unequal grounds, bias around wanting a circumcision, extra time for the uncircumcised men, use of condoms, demographics and a drop of a lot of the sample on the first place are one of the most important), and even with all of these mistakes the study got a 1% difference, the relative risk shouldn't be used and using it is sensationalism, the act of using that study is retarded as shit.

For that reason they shouldn't try to dismiss the part on the first place.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> While it's certainly true there's a lot of speds who obsess over it, I implore you to consider which came first. Is there a way for a man to express concern over this issue publicly without coming off as weird? No, it's considered weird for a man to care about this at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy to shame men into being silent.
> 
> Says a lot about society, bottom text, etc.


I think they NEED to refrain harder when comes the temptation to compare it to what happens to women in a number of African countries. It's simply unseemly. 

I am pro-intact dicks, always have been, always will be. I encountered the preference for circumcised dicks via pop culture and found it autistic. 

Generally it seems to be that our bodies are pretty well designed and whatever organ we have got there as the result of millennia of evolution, has a purpose  and on most people, it's better to let it be.
(Give or take that weird appendice at the end of our intestine)


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> Sexual reassignment surgery is a "well known medical process", what's your fucking point? Does that make it ok to do to kids? And way to dodge the point, by this reasoning molesting a newborn straight from the womb is a-ok because they're ego hasn't developed yet. You're essentially giving carte blanche to do whatever you want to a baby so long as they're young enough. Commit to it pussy, argue that nothing done to a newborn can traumatize them. Otherwise fuck off.
> 
> Why are you so defensive over mutilating baby dicks? Why does the mere suggestion that chopping off a babies sensitive body parts might give them long term psychological trauma piss you off?


Holy shit, just about everything you wrote here is wrong and disgusting. Sexual reassignment surgery is completely incomparable in consequences (besides tons of factors). I don't know how you are even able to jump off to molesting babies, I'd advice going to a psychiatrist. The argument that it's okay to do everything to a baby is pure retardation and ignores what I said about long term consequences (but if you really want, people who harass babies should be hung just for the sake of the betterment of society, even if technically the child won't remember it). The second paragrapth is just full on emotional sperging. You can't even call me a hypocrite when I've been through the surgery.



Yarp64371234 said:


> it's the integrity aspect. even if that shit wasn't true you wouldn't have the need to circumcise. i just said more benefits to show you that circumcision is wrong on all aspects, even more when it makes for a better social bonding between mates and helps evade damages, which is a good thing that is helpful and reflects on a better state of life, saying otherwise is justifying an abuse which damages people, which is the thing that you are doing, even more when the pain is still there after anesthetics, which i have explained before.


I didn't know we live in a hentai comic, when you are bonded with a woman after fucking her hard enough. There is lube for damages, and all aspects of life pretty much seem to start and end with sex. And again with the emotional argument of abuse. 

I'd be honest, I was preparing myself to fun autism wars, but it's very much the same repeated arguments of less fun sex and that I hate babies. It's obvious why the whole discourse of circumcision is stuck, it's too cringy for normies to be interested in, too degenerate for the right (though you might have some success with Fuentez and the new right), and too poltically charged for the left.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> I think they NEED to refrain harder when comes the temptation to compare it to what happens to women in a number of African countries. It's simply unseemly.


I must implore you to again consider why you feel that way. Is it because one is worse than the other, or because you've been conditioned to disregard what happens to one sex?

I'm not even saying they're equal or which is worse/better, because that's ultimately irrelevant. The fact that you and most people even try measure out which of these barbaric practices is more acceptable is odd when you take a step back and look at it. It's not normal for someone to freak out at another victim because their experience wasn't quite as bad. Imagine a victim of rape bashing a victim of child molestation because the later's abuse wasn't as violent. That's crazy narcicistic behavior, but in the context of genital mutilation it's treated as normal.

Not trying to give you shit, just pointing this stuff out because I don't think most people don't even notice.



wtfNeedSignUp said:


> The argument that it's okay to do everything to a baby is pure retardation and ignores what I said about long term consequences


Your own words:


wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Any other argument is pointless since it's just an emotional "you are causing pain to a baby!", Which is obvious but inconsequential.





wtfNeedSignUp said:


> doesn't equal getting molested after having an ego while fully realizing of your own powerlessness


You've said that inflicting pain on a baby doesn't matter, and implied if they can't directly remember the experience it's not important. So what's your moral objection to molesting a newborn?

I'd say it's bad because you're traumatizing the child and ruining them for life. But you don't seem to think that's possible, so what's your objection?


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Holy shit, just about everything you wrote here is wrong and disgusting. Sexual reassignment surgery is completely incomparable in consequences (besides tons of factors). I don't know how you are even able to jump off to molesting babies, I'd advice going to a psychiatrist. The argument that it's okay to do everything to a baby is pure retardation and ignores what I said about long term consequences (but if you really want, people who harass babies should be hung just for the sake of the betterment of society, even if technically the child won't remember it). The second paragrapth is just full on emotional sperging. You can't even call me a hypocrite when I've been through the surgery.
> 
> 
> I didn't know we live in a hentai comic, when you are bonded with a woman after fucking her hard enough. There is lube for damages, and all aspects of life pretty much seem to start and end with sex. And again with the emotional argument of abuse.
> ...


No dude, it's just that you shouldn't cut a part, that's it. It can be hard to stomach thanks to the rejection of sexual function, but for that reason it's normally used the aspect of respect and pain, which i have explained otherwise, it isn't degenerate because it doesn't destroy the person, so there isn't a point on the first place.

Obviously sex will be worse because it's a sex organ, that's the thing it will cause, even more when i talked about other problems like traumatic responses.

Sex is an important part around close relationships with a mate, so it isn't wrong to talk about the problems that these procedure causes to a person, but even with that, there's other reasons which i have explained that make it wrong, even more when it's just based around that simple respect of another person body.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> I must implore you to again consider why you feel that way. Is it because one is worse than the other, or because you've been conditioned to disregard what happens to one sex?


No, retard. Because in the case of FGM sometimes they just cut up the hood of the clitoris, but very often cut off the clitoris/sometimes the labia minora/sometimes even the Labia Majora. Sometimes the whole thing is sawn together to prevent anything from entering. 
And it happens on pre-teen girls rather than on infants.
The poor girl often feel like they are pissing daggers everyday...



Kermit Jizz said:


> I'm not even saying they're equal or which is worse/better, because that's ultimately irrelevant.



It's actually REALLY REALLY relevant because one it obviously way way worse, and pretending it's not make you look like you are at the very least stupid or/and ignorant.

If you want to be taken seriously you must avoid using/disregarding other people suffering as a way to talk about your own. You must come off like you are a rational individual, aware of what's happening in the world and you know how to position yourself in it. 
Which, as of now, you don't.




Kermit Jizz said:


> The fact that you and most people even try measure out which of these barbaric practices is more acceptable is odd when you take a step back and look at it. It's not normal for someone to freak out at another victim because their experience wasn't quite as bad. Imagine a victim of rape bashing a victim of child molestation because the later's abuse wasn't as violent. That's crazy narcicistic behavior, but in the context of genital mutilation it's treated as normal.


You clearly have no concept of what you are talking about. Stop now.
Your issue isn't that your victim status is disregarded, it's that you are getting in your own way by using other people's traumas to prop yourself up. Until you learn not to do that, people will be right not to take you seriously.

Stop insisting. You are wrong. If I had a whole week I wouldn't have the time to explain to you all the way in which you are retarded.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> No, retard. Because in the case of FGM sometimes they just cut up the hood of the clitoris, but very often cut off the clitoris/sometimes the labia minora/sometimes even the Labia Majora. Sometimes the whole thing is sawn together to prevent anything from entering.
> And it happens on pre-teen girls rather than on infants.
> The poor girl often feel like they are pissing daggers everyday...
> 
> ...


that's the most minimal case, most of them just remove a small part of the labia.

The suffering of FGM is still incredible, but we need to see both of those sufferings.

It's still wrong, but we shouldn't base a cutting aspect by the quantity or lost of function, but the cut on the first place, even more when both of them lost all of their functions.

The worst cases for both are normally extremely weird and normally reflect that full blown damage, if you want a comparison to those images around FGM you could look at the worst MGM where they cut the penis half and destroy all of the skin (this is at the same age), which is more similar to those operations and is still practice on some areas, just like the most extreme versions of FGM.

In general you are trying to downplay one mutilation by trying to say that it isn't important because of another mutilation.

You need one for the other, we should strive to stop both procedures (FGM and MGM), not try to separate them on morality aspects around which is better.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> that's the most minimal case, most of them just remove a small part of the labia.
> 
> It's still wrong, but we shouldn't base a cutting aspect by the quantity or lost of function, but the cut on the first place, even more when both of them lost the entire pleasure of sex.
> 
> ...


You are making shit up at this point.

I have met a big number of circumcised men, and I have yet to talk to a dude that got his dick flayed, while social workers in multiple countries have to watch black teen girls like hawk if they want to prevent them from getting their clit chopped off.

Most guys don't loose their orgasm in circumcision, they can still coom.
While it is much, much more prevalent when it comes to female genital mutilation that it is done to prevent sexual pleasure (sometimes called impurities).

One is worse than the other. It's just is. Two things can be bad, two things can be equally bad even, but not those two bad things.
 You have a case, but If you can't argue it without liking it to FGM, you will lose 100% of the time and it's gonna be your own damn fault.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> You are making shit up at this point.
> 
> I have met a big number of circumcised men, and I have yet to talk to a dude that got his dick flayed, while social workers in multiple countries have to watch black teen girls like hawk if they want to prevent them from getting their clit chopped off.
> 
> ...


No, i'm not making shit up, it happens in africa too. the procedure of flaying is really common and in a lot of tribes or even modern setting they flay the skin when they are teenagers as a "passage" to adulthood, it's just that there isn't any laws against it to catch the retards who do it unlike FGM (which needs more laws against the practice of flying to another country to do FGM in all of the states).

Even more to this, no, they lose their sensitivity and only ejaculation remains, something that is very minimal and it's reflected to that destroyed sexuality, even more when most FGM is more similar to removing the foreskin, where they can still orgasm but lose a lot of sexual function and suffer pains through it (being more difficult and being an abusive aspect which is undeniable).

The worst of FGM and MGM destroys all of orgasm and function, all MGM and FGM destroys sexual pleasure for reproduction, you need one for the other, for opening and making the destructive procedure of FGM, you need MGM to make the penis have the capacity to break these damaged parts, instead of functioning normally.

Both are made to decrease sexual pleasure specifically, they are destructive, just represent that reproductive and abusive aspect and cause more troubles, you can see this because men who have their foreskin left overs destroyed cannot orgasm and can only ejaculate, something that just exist to reproduce.

The only way to show the case is showing that they are mutual and that we should stop both, there isn't any other way because they work together to undermine anything related to these aspects, this is undeniable.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

@Sarcastic sockpuppet
You seem pretty riled up about this topic and I feel like you projected some other discussions you've had onto my post. I think we're not understanding each other so I'll attempt to clarify



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> It's actually REALLY REALLY relevant because one it obviously way way worse, and pretending it's not make you look like you are at the very least stupid or/and ignorant.


You seem to have interpreted "I'm not even saying they're equal or which is worse/better, because that's ultimately irrelevant" as me giving my opinion on which is worse. I never gave my opinion on which is worse, because like I said it's irrelevant. What I was trying to convey is that ranking victims of abuse in some sort of hierarchy is bad and frankly just leads to more cruelty.



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> No, retard. Because in the case of FGM sometimes they just cut up the hood of the clitoris, but very often cut off the clitoris/sometimes the labia minora/sometimes even the Labia Majora. Sometimes the whole thing is sawn together to prevent anything from entering.
> And it happens on pre-teen girls rather than on infants.
> The poor girl often feel like they are pissing daggers everyday...


I knew all of this, but again it's not relevant to what I was saying and I'll get to that in a moment.



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> Your issue isn't that your victim status is disregarded, it's that you are getting in your own way by using other people's traumas to prop yourself up.


Another assumption you've made, I never gave my own status. You're projecting a lot onto me. I am not trying to prop myself up or belittle anyone. Frankly I was trying to do the opposite, get people to quit squabbling over who has it worse because that just causes more harm, which I can highlight in your posts.



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> I have yet to talk to a dude that got his dick flayed





Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> Most guys don't loose their orgasm in circumcision


Right here, this is the gay shit I was trying to argue against. You very clearly are aware that some men get really fucked up by circumcisions gone wrong, and they do happen far more often than you realize. There are well known documented cases of men being castrated for instance.

Before you start typing "BUT BUT BUT" just listen to what I'm saying. I'm not making a comparison because like I said its pointless to do that. The point I'm making is that in your attempts to rank which group has suffered more, you have told the men who have been horribly mutilated that their suffering is a minor issue in comparison. To the many men who have suffered moderate complications, you have dismissed their pain just because there is someone on another continent suffering more. Even just the dudes who have standard drawbacks from getting their dicks cut up, you're putting them down for no reason.

Both practices are barbaric, both are cruel, both have caused immense suffering, both are evil. It's always evil to cut up other peoples bodies against their will. Yeah you can start measuring dicks about who was it worse, and believe it or not I'd agree the shit that goes on in the third world is far worse on average. But people aren't averages and telling someone who's suffering that "well on average your better off than someone else" is just vile and solves nothing.  As I was trying to say before, both acts are evil and they should be stopped, any discussion beyond that is irrelevant.

Now quit bullying me, I've been nice to you this whole time. Dick.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> Now quit bullying me, I've been nice to you this whole time. Dick.


Go on and cry about it.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> Go on and cry about it.


It was a joke mate. A show of not having hard feelings or whatever. But clearly the feelings not mutual.

Why are your knickers so bunched up?


----------



## Weed Eater (May 2, 2022)

Clown Baby said:


> Men can't be trusted to rinse a dish before putting it in the dishwasher, you expect me to believe they thoroughly clean inside their penis sheaths? The vagina doesn't get smegma in it, because the vagina is completely self-cleaning. If any sort of gunk builds up in women's genitals it would be around the vulva aka the "lips." Comparing pussy lips, which are wide open with a quick spread of the legs and easily cleaned, to an uncut dick, which is fully encased in a hideous slug-like flesh trap that has to be peeled like a banana and hosed out every day or else get filled with literal cheese, I'm fucking cackling.
> 
> Circumcision has become common practice outside of religious obligation because it reduces infection. Uncircumcised men and boys have a higher risk for UTIs, kidney infection, yeast infection, and something called balanitis, which is basically an infected dickhead from being dirty. Men with cut dicks don't have to worry about any of these problems. Doctors cut dicks at birth because no one trusts men to clean anything properly. Simple as.


Damn you haven't been around a woman whatsoever then, and if you are one, lmfao. Give us one-two days and we'll have white buildup in our vulvas. It's still considered smegma. It smells like it, it feels like it. "Smegma" is literally defined as "a sebaceous secretion in the folds of the skin".

Anyone who isn't hosing out their genital folds at least once a day are disgusting pigs in general, doesn't matter who they are. And mutilating babies the moment they're born or within the first month of their lives doesn't change the fact that all it takes is basic bodily hygiene to avoid the avoidable.

Also
>hideous
>slug-like
>banana
>literal cheese

I heard of a freak woman who made literal sourdough bread from her pussy yeast, because her yeast infection was THAT fucking bad.
Women were also known to make weird shit with their menstrual blood. From art, to chocolates, ect.
Don't get me started on the fact that vulvas/vaginas are ugly as fuck, they look and act like aliens. 

The hatred can go both ways. You're not cute or special for acting like a kike roastie. @Return of the Freaker thanks for such a on-the-nose (LMFAO) observation.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> Damn you haven't been around a woman whatsoever then, and if you are one, lmfao. Give us one-two days and we'll have white buildup in our vulvas. It's still considered smegma. It smells like it, it feels like it. "Smegma" is literally defined as "a sebaceous secretion in the folds of the skin".
> 
> Anyone who isn't hosing out their genital folds at least once a day are disgusting pigs in general, doesn't matter who they are. And mutilating babies the moment they're born or within the first month of their lives doesn't change the fact that all it takes is basic bodily hygiene to avoid the avoidable.
> 
> ...


they look fine, pussies are cute.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> they look fine, pussies are cute.


For as long as I've lived I never liked the way I looked. Shit looks weird, man. I've always described it as "alien-esque" lol. At least looking at a penis uncut or not makes more sense. I try not to worry about it though, it's just a side of the heterosexual man that I will never really understand, while I sit on the island of heterosexual woman with things y'all may not understand.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> For as long as I've lived I never liked the way I looked. Shit looks weird, man. I've always described it as "alien-esque" lol. At least looking at a penis uncut or not makes more sense. I try not to worry about it though, it's just a side of the heterosexual man that I will never really understand, while I sit on the island of heterosexual woman with things y'all may not understand.


stop having self aflicted fears. it looks fine.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> For as long as I've lived I never liked the way I looked. Shit looks weird, man. I've always described it as "alien-esque" lol. At least looking at a penis uncut or not makes more sense. I try not to worry about it though, it's just a side of the heterosexual man that I will never really understand, while I sit on the island of heterosexual woman with things y'all may not understand.


Most guys don't like the way pussys look the same way women don't like the way dicks look. @Yarp64371234 is an outlier.

Genitals aren't really meant to be looked at in the first place, they don't need to be pretty.


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> Most guys don't like the way pussys look the same way women don't like the way dicks look. @Yarp64371234 is an outlier.
> 
> Genitals aren't really meant to be looked at in the first place, they don't need to be pretty.


you are abnormal, mentally ill fuck.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> you are abnormal, mentally ill fuck.


You're half right. That's just been my anecdote anyway, never known too many guys who talked about how attractive vaginas are. Only one I can think of is a professional artist so that's just expected.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> You're half right. That's just been my anecdote anyway, never known too many guys who talked about how attractive vaginas are. Only one I can think of is a professional artist so that's just expected.


Interesting. I have to agree with Yarp to an extent, most hetero men really seem to like how vulvas look so that's usually what I assume for most.

But you are right about the "attractiveness" thing. There is no "photogenic" genitalia.


----------



## Sarcastic sockpuppet (May 2, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> It was a joke mate. A show of not having hard feelings or whatever. But clearly the feelings not mutual.
> 
> Why are your knickers so bunched up?


I guess they removed your foreskin... but also half of your brain, and now you can't make a funny joke to save your life. 
You truly are a victim sorry I doubted you.


----------



## Weed Eater (May 2, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> I guess they removed your foreskin... but also half of your brain, and now you can't make a funny joke to save your life.
> You truly are a victim sorry I doubted you.


The biggest takeaway when it comes to the circumcision discussion should be the fact that yeah, unless a guy had so much of a botched circumcisions, usually the loss of said foreskin isn't really much of a "trauma" for them. By that point,_ that's their dick_. Yeah for the uncut community and the anti community it seems like a travesty, but seriously, in the end that's what those men have to deal with and for the most part they've not overanalyzing or overthinking about their loss. Not to say that there aren't men who are cut who do think like that, I've talked to a friend about this topic before and he really believes his lack of sensitivity/issues with pleasure stem from being circumcised. So, kudos to whoever's beliefs are, ultimately.

But seriously, acting like cut men have had their foreskins ripped off by the devil doesn't add to the argument of the conversation. Those men get to live their lives being cut, they don't need to be ridiculed, let alone pitied and seen like a victim. Their dicks are more than likely working just fine, and if anything the biggest thing they should takeaway from this thread are three things:

One, use lubricants in sexual activities. Sex or masturbation, doesn't matter. _Don't callus your cock._
Two, if using condoms, lube that condom up. Drop of lube in the reservoir, slide on, apply lube on outside. _Reduce friction._
And lastly, if you're thinking about kids or your wife has a son on the way, consider not circumcising him so they don't go through the same bullshit.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (May 2, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> Their dicks are more than likely working just fine, and if anything the biggest thing they should takeaway from this thread are three things:
> 
> One, use lubricants in sexual activities. Sex or masturbation, doesn't matter. _Don't callus your cock._


These two statements are in direct contrast.



Weed Eater said:


> Yeah for the uncut community and the anti community it seems like a travesty, but seriously, in the end that's what those men have to deal with and for the most part they've not overanalyzing or overthinking about their loss.


You're not wrong, but does that really make the situation better? Doing something awful to someone and having them retroactively accept it happens with a lot of fucked up shit, Stockholm syndrome comes to mind.

Alternatively, what choice does anyone have but to accept situations like these? The alternatives are live a deeply miserable life or kill yourself. Denial is a powerful force, I'm pretty certain the only reason men (anecdotally it's usually dad's) get their son's cut is because to not would mean they'd have to accept that what happened to them was fucked up. Always easier to live in denial.



Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> I guess they removed your foreskin... but also half of your brain, and now you can't make a funny joke to save your life.
> You truly are a victim sorry I doubted you.


I just wanted to talk about genital mutilation and make frens , why must you be so mean


----------



## grimacefetishist (May 2, 2022)

Yarp64371234 said:


> No, i'm not making shit up, it happens in africa too. the procedure of flaying is really common and in a lot of tribes or even modern setting they flay the skin when they are teenagers as a "passage" to adulthood, it's just that there isn't any laws against it to catch the retards who do it unlike FGM (which needs more laws against the practice of flying to another country to do FGM in all of the states).
> 
> Even more to this, no, they lose their sensitivity and only ejaculation remains, something that is very minimal and it's reflected to that destroyed sexuality, even more when most FGM is more similar to removing the foreskin, where they can still orgasm but lose a lot of sexual function and suffer pains through it (being more difficult and being an abusive aspect which is undeniable).
> 
> ...


You seem pretty assured that FGM doesn't intentionally remove the glans, however you need to be aware that that isn't the common perception of the procedure. And I don't really see how removal of the clitoral hood is possible without also removing the glans, especially in the conditins associated with fgm, but you seem pretty convinced of this.

Face it, this talking point as stupid. Even if it turns out you're right, most people aren't that interested in the subject and won't care that you just meant the ones where they only slice off the hood


----------



## Yarp64371234 (May 2, 2022)

grimacefetishist said:


> You seem pretty assured that FGM doesn't intentionally remove the glans, however you need to be aware that that isn't the common perception of the procedure. And I don't really see how removal of the clitoral hood is possible without also removing the glans, especially in the conditins associated with fgm, but you seem pretty convinced of this.
> 
> Face it, this talking point as stupid. Even if it turns out you're right, most people aren't that interested in the subject and won't care that you just meant the ones where they only slice off the hood


the procedure is normally done like that (cut of the clitoral hood, which still damages it and normally hurts you for life, for type 1b it's more similar to total skinning of the penis and that's the one who cuts it off.), it's awful but that's what is done, nothing more nothing else.
the point is that we shouldn't do those things on the first place, not mattering if it's done on females or males, even if most of FGM is small in comparison, the simple fact that it's the same as MGM and it's a mutilation which damages a kid for life should make it equally illegal.


----------



## Drael (May 3, 2022)

Didn't see this mentioned already so I'll just leave it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc


----------



## teriyakiburns (May 3, 2022)

Sarcastic sockpuppet said:


> (Give or take that weird appendice at the end of our intestine)


The appendix is now known to be a save-haven reservoir for gut flora to repopulate from when your intestines are flushed out by food poisoning or an intestinal problem. It also forms part of the immune system.


----------



## JoshPlz (May 4, 2022)




----------

