The whole discourse on circumcision is fucked up.

[Weed Eater]

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]

Here’s a tip. Cut it out.

 

[Grub]

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

 

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

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]

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:

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]

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).

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

My point still stands

Does it though?

 

[GoysGoneWild]

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]

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]

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

 

[tijuana gay hookers]

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]

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.