The whole discourse on circumcision is fucked up.

[Weed Eater]

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 Snakes]

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

 

[ToroidalBoat]

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

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

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).

 

[Ultrapenguin]

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.

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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

 

[Troonos]

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]

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

Who's looking and why??

 

[ToroidalBoat]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.


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

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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.