The whole discourse on circumcision is fucked up.

[Yarp64371234]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Are you literally retarded that you just typed that?

 

[Yarp64371234]

Are you literally retarded that you just typed that?

no. that's how birthing works.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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.