The whole discourse on circumcision is fucked up.

[Yarp64371234]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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:

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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]

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...



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.



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.

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]

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.

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, 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 an aspect of mutilation by trying to say that it isn't important, even if there's biological differences which make these parts more sensitive or different, even if it's something that it's still wrong if they were exactly the same.

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]

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.

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]

@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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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

Go on and cry about it.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

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]

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]

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.

they look fine, pussies are cute.

 

[Weed Eater]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.