# Are you American? Are you circumcized? Then you NEED to watch this



## alexg1989 (Jul 28, 2018)

No, really, you will be pissed off.. Everything we were taught about circumcision is a complete lie!


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

Watched this a couple of days ago, wanted a discussion on this. Good video. Had to speed it up though cause he talks a little slow.


----------



## ThoD (Jul 28, 2018)

Without a "tl;dw" message explaining what it's all about and why that video is so important and not a complete waste of time considering how it's 2+ hours long, this is more fit for EoF really...


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Without a "tl;dw" message explaining what it's all about and why that video is so important and not a complete waste of time considering how it's 2+ hours long, this is more fit for EoF really...


No it isn't. This is general off topic chat. I think it would be better for "world and politics" though.
TL;DR (but seriously watch the video): Circumcision is a practice that has no benifits and was originally done to mark us as cattle and rid us of sexual pleasure.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 28, 2018)

Tldr

You will be PISSED OFF... Everything we were ever taught about circumcision was a complete lie. None of it is true. It doesn't help prevent diseases, it isn't unhygienic. If you're uncut (NORMAL) dick is dirty then fucking clean it like you're supposed to. It is a religious practice being forced on us all...

Spread this shit. But definitely watch that video. Do not take my word for it. Watch the video and see for yourself. He goes into the entire history of circumcision


----------



## THEELEMENTKH (Jul 28, 2018)

Well, I'm not american and since I have phimosis and I, for the love of god, can't get rid of it I want to take a surgery to remove my skin
Does this have to concern me at all considering I'm from Spain?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

THEELEMENTKH said:


> Well, I'm not american and since I have phimosis and I, for the love of god, can't get rid of it I want to take a surgery to remove my skin
> Does this have to concern me at all considering I'm from Spain?


Most likely not. Circumcision rates were like 1.8% in 1986 so no.


----------



## ThoD (Jul 28, 2018)

VinLark said:


> No it isn't. This is general off topic chat. I think it would be better for "world and politics" though.
> TL;DR (but seriously watch the video): Circumcision is a practice that has no benifits and was originally done to mark us as cattle and rid us of sexual pleasure.


I think you need to read a biology book. May watch the video when I have time and feel like boring myself with something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text, but circumcision isn't for that reason. Circumcision decreases the rate of STD transmissions (as you don't get infected right away and the viruses/germs take a few hours to penetrate your skin which is done easier if they get stuck under the foreskin) and although using protection makes it obsolete, it's also for people suffering from phimosis, so depending on the case circumcision is not only good but also necessary... Don't know what the video says exactly but when I watch it I'll post again. And yes, maybe not EoF...


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> I think you need to read a biology book. May watch the video when I have time and feel like boring myself with something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text, but circumcision isn't for that reason. Circumcision is decreases the rate of STD transmissions (as you don't get infected right away and the viruses/germs take a few hours to penetrate your skin which is done easier if they get stuck under the foreskin) and although using protection makes it obsolete, it's also for people suffering from phimosis, so depending on the case circumcision is not only good but also necessary... Don't know what the video says exactly but when I watch it I'll post again. And yes, maybe not EoF...


He explains that in the video actually. I don't remember the study actually but the STD thing is a myth.

Seriously, you can't say "something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text" if you haven't watched the video. You seem to be cynical of the video _already_


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> I think you need to read a biology book. May watch the video when I have time and feel like boring myself with something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text, but circumcision isn't for that reason. Circumcision decreases the rate of STD transmissions (as you don't get infected right away and the viruses/germs take a few hours to penetrate your skin which is done easier if they get stuck under the foreskin) and although using protection makes it obsolete, it's also for people suffering from phimosis, so depending on the case circumcision is not only good but also necessary... Don't know what the video says exactly but when I watch it I'll post again. And yes, maybe not EoF...


decreases, sure. but do you know about how much? something like 1% or something like that. As opposed to condoms which which is closer to >99%. And that's only for the infections that are transmitted from direct genital to genital contact. And the reason why it does this? because without a foreskin, the head of the penis hardens a bit from all the unprotected rubbing. Which also means the head of the circumcised penis is less sensitive.

is a slight 1% increase in protection really worth it when having unprotected sex with an infected person really worth the chopping off so many nerve endings? Is it worth making that choice for a baby who won't need that 1% for a looooong time? And that's assuming that number is a valid result (I'm not sure if it's been debunked or not)


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 28, 2018)

No one's forcing parents to circumcise their kids. It looks neater, it has religious roots that people still recongnize, it's not a big deal at all


----------



## matias3ds (Jul 28, 2018)

Are you talking about all the Americans ?? Like the ones that lives in Canada , Mexico , Brasil , Argentina .
Or only USA North Americans ?


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

matias3ds said:


> Are you talking about all the Americans ?? Like the ones that lives in Canada , Mexico , Brasil , Argentina .
> Or only USA North Americans ?


"Americans" is the name of the people who live in the USA as "america" is the last part of the name of our country. If there was a country called "central america" or "north america", they could be called americans  but they're not, so just us from the USA are called americans.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jul 28, 2018)

I could guess what this was by the title. Makes sense...


----------



## ThoD (Jul 28, 2018)

VinLark said:


> He explains that in the video actually. I don't remember the study actually but the STD thing is a myth.
> 
> Seriously, you can't say "something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text" if you haven't watched the video. You seem to be cynical of the video _already_


That is because I can pretty much guess what he's talking about. Also, the 2 paragraphs of text thing came from watching 5 minutes and seeing how slow it goes...



osaka35 said:


> decreases, sure. but do you know about how much? something like 1% or something like that. As opposed to condoms which which is closer to >99%. And that's only for the infections that are transmitted from direct genital to genital contact. And the reason why it does this? because without a foreskin, the head of the penis hardens a bit from all the unprotected rubbing. Which also means the head of the circumcised penis is less sensitive.
> 
> is a slight 1% increase in protection really worth it when having unprotected sex with an infected person really worth the chopping off so many nerve endings? Is it worth making that choice for a baby who won't need that 1% for a looooong time? And that's assuming that number is a valid result (I'm not sure if it's been debunked or not)


From what I remember, it's around 12%, but not for being infected yourself, but infecting others (your partner in case there's no fluid exchange, as fluids are almost guaranteed to spread diseases). Same goes for shaving, it prevents diseases TO your partner (eg: infection by hairmatter). I know about the loss of sensitivity and everything and really, I'm not saying circumcision should be done all the time, just trying to say it's case by case. Each person is different and depending on how the foreskin is and how it retracts for them should decide circumcision, definitely not something that should be done at birth, but rather at around 14-16 years old (past 18 there are risks after all and at 16 you've developed enough already to see if it's necessary).


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 28, 2018)

Penn and Teller did it first. I honestly thought that was going to be the video linked here, but I can't stand to watch that episode due to them shlwing both the circumcision procedure as well as a method to restore the foreskin.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 28, 2018)

It should be outlawed. It's crazy how bad religion can cloud people's judgement.


----------



## matias3ds (Jul 28, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> "Americans" is the name of the people who live in the USA as "america" is the last part of the name of our country. If there was a country called "central america" or "north america", they could be called americans  but they're not, so just us from the USA are called americans.


Now i thought that I know about geography , but Osaka also belong to USA ??? I was thinking that it was on Japan .
And by the way you country name doesnt need to have the America/n word in the country to make it a part of the continent ; all the people that lives inside de American continent are Americans , as much as all the people that lives in the European continent are Europeans , get it ?? :-)


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

matias3ds said:


> Now i thought that I know about geography , but Osaka also belong to USA ??? I was thinking that it was on Japan .
> And by the way you country name doesnt need to have the America/n word in the country to make it a part of the continent ; all the people that lives inside de American country are Americans , as much as all the people that lives in the European continent are Europeans , get it ?? :-)


Good point! Those in the USA have a problem then, since "american" also applies to them alone, as well as being a part of north american. It reminds me of the ever-so fun problem of "are you irish tho" asked of those from nothern ireland.

And yes, I am human that lives in USA. Osaka is fun though, I love my Kushikatsu


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 28, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> It should be outlawed. It's crazy how bad religion can cloud people's judgement.


Why is that necessary?


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> Why is that necessary?


To protect the rights of the child who cannot speak for themselves, especially as a baby, to not have a mainly cosmetic surgery. Medical necessity is a thing, though, so there should always be that exception.


----------



## Fugelmir (Jul 28, 2018)

Circumcision definitely decreases the amount of blood the penis can hold and ergo they lose a lot of the hardness.  Then during coitus it bends too easily and, well...


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 28, 2018)

-snip-
Not even worth it


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> Well abortion is still legal. Ban that and then we'll talk


I would love to discuss that topic with you, but it's a bit of a red herring and has zero to do with this discussion X'D. Are you saying you favour banning non-necessary circumcision, but only after the banning of abortion?


----------



## ThoD (Jul 28, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Circumcision definitely decreases the amount of blood the penis can hold and ergo they lose a lot of the hardness.  Then during coitus it bends too easily and, well...


Who told you such a thing? The foreskin has NOTHING to do with erection... The penis has what you can think of as a balloon inside that fills up with blood and that is how erections work, the foreskin is something completely irrelevant and doesn't affect erections (unless in EXTREMELY serious cases of phimosis), so what you said basically makes no sense.


----------



## matias3ds (Jul 28, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Good point! Those in the USA have a problem then, since "american" also applies to them alone, as well as being a part of north american. It reminds me of the ever-so fun problem of "are you irish tho" asked of those from nothern ireland.
> 
> And yes, I am human that lives in USA. Osaka is fun though, I love my Kushikatsu


Ho I didnt know about the Irish ,, gonna google it :-)
Anyways Americans that live in Argentina are not circumsized unless that you are from the Jewish religion .


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 28, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> I would love to discuss that topic with you, but it's a bit of a red herring and has zero to do with this discussion X'D. Are you saying you favour banning non-necessary circumcision, but only after the banning of abortion?


You said it's about the right of the child. If it's not the right of the child to choose life, then no one can vouch that it's their right for a small cosmetic change. 

Honetly I think this whole controversy is ridiculous. We're sitting around talking about penises


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 28, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> You said it's about the right of the child. If it's not the right of the child to choose life, then no one can vouch that it's their right for a small cosmetic change.
> 
> Honetly I think this whole controversy is ridiculous. We're sitting around talking about penises


so your belief is that if we don't ban abortions (from moment of conception?), then we don't really care about babies (fully born) and no laws about autonomy are real regarding babies unless abortion is banned? That seems like an...odd position.

And yes, genital mutilation is a serious conversation that needs to be had


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 28, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> so your belief is that if we don't ban abortions (from moment of conception?), then we don't really care about babies (fully born) and no laws are real regarding babies unless abortion is banned? That seems like an...odd position.
> 
> And yes, genital mutilation is a serious conversation that needs to be had


Alright, it's not even worth arguing. I have the minor opinion and I should probably shut up before things get out of hand


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

Guys, let's not turn this into an abortian debate. This is about the original topic of circumsicion.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 28, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> You said it's about the right of the child. If it's not the right of the child to choose life, then no one can vouch that it's their right for a small cosmetic change.
> 
> Honetly I think this whole controversy is ridiculous. We're sitting around talking about penises


Fetus does not equal child, but that's unrelated. It isn't just a "small cosmetic change". You lose sensitivity.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

Yeah no thanks. If I had a son, i'd get him circumcised. People who don't get circumcised tend to be fuckin nasty and don't even wash their penis right. I don't care if he becomes gay or whatever sexuality becomes by 2040, ain't no boy of mine gonna be a nasty-ass.


----------



## YamiZee (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Yeah no thanks. If I had a son, i'd get him circumcised. People who don't get circumcised tend to be fuckin nasty and don't even wash their penis right. I don't care if he becomes gay or whatever sexuality becomes by 2040, ain't no boy of mine gonna be a nasty-ass.


Might as well cut the whole penis off, maybe the balls too. Easier to clean right? Can't trust a kid to clean their balls right. Having sex or pleasure doesn't matter.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Without a "tl;dw" message explaining what it's all about and why that video is so important and not a complete waste of time considering how it's 2+ hours long, this is more fit for EoF really...


agreed 100% lol.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

YamiZee said:


> Might as well cut the whole penis off, maybe the balls too. Easier to clean right? Having sex doesn't matter.


whoosh  

It's alright, though. I still love you.


----------



## YamiZee (Jul 28, 2018)

To be fair my response is directed to just anyone that shares those beliefs which there is at least one in this thread.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 28, 2018)

this all got *real* political real quick lmao

im cool with being cut, like i dont gotta use my hands when i pee


----------



## Viri (Jul 28, 2018)

Oh god, it's like the Silent Hill wiki shit storm all over again!

https://archive.is/X0gkm


----------



## Fugelmir (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Who told you such a thing? The foreskin has NOTHING to do with erection... The penis has what you can think of as a balloon inside that fills up with blood and that is how erections work, the foreskin is something completely irrelevant and doesn't affect erections (unless in EXTREMELY serious cases of phimosis), so what you said basically makes no sense.



Look at the weight of erect penises circumcised vs uncircumcised.  Fun stuff.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 28, 2018)

What makes circumcision "funny" to me is less that it happens a surprisingly high rate in the US but that it was re-adopted.  Honestly, as others point out it's heavily a cosmetic thing for many parents--they want their son to look like their father--and could be said to heavily originate from WWI where "clean your penis" was pretty much bottom of the list of things that were considered and for which any STD reduction was a positive--as even with the strong push for condoms in WWI.  Funny how circumcision was such a deal breaker in the early church for conversion of gentiles to Christian that things like that (and dietary laws) were deemed unnecessary.

In short, virtually* all the medical benefits of circumcision are tied to things you do as an adult, it makes little sense to force it on infants.  Add to this the whole American idea of choosing your religion and it's exceptionally odd.  Of course in countries where they perform circumcision as a rite of passage, there's sufficient amounts of peer pressure to make most children fall in line.  I imagine that if we outlawed the practice on infants and allowed it at 13** then we'd still see a massive amount of people still doing it without really much consenting.

* As rare as penile cancer is and as about the only thing that circumcision seems to have a substantial effect on, AFAIK it can still happen at a young age.  Of course, one could preemptively remove all sorts of parts of the body based on the potential for cancer, so that's a really horrible justification.

** As young as they could argue to make the boy as malleable as possible.  The irony of course is the other stated benefit is some STD protection which implies encouraging the practice so your son can have sex safer at an early age.  This is of course the exact opposite to the behavior of parents to the cervical cancer vaccine where somehow removing a cancer risk would promote early promiscuity.  Point is, if you raised it to 16 or 18, circumcision would probably most die out in a generation.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Yeah no thanks. If I had a son, i'd get him circumcised. People who don't get circumcised tend to be fuckin nasty and don't even wash their penis right. I don't care if he becomes gay or whatever sexuality becomes by 2040, ain't no boy of mine gonna be a nasty-ass.


You could, you know, tell him to wash his private parts? No that would be gay lmfao ain't no place for gays in our cribs amrite homie gimme 5


----------



## markehmus (Jul 28, 2018)

kind of a loner most of my life and yet i have known 2 people who had to get this done in their late teens  due to infection , i chose to avoid my boys getting it done late cuz at 7 days old they never knew the dif anyway and it saved them any chance of going through shit later , i was done as an infant and never complained about it ... 

... if it causes less feeling having it done  , oh well , i cant complain ... and less feeling would mean lasting longer  so im sure my partners wouldn't complain


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 28, 2018)

ThoD said:


> I think you need to read a biology book. May watch the video when I have time and feel like boring myself with something that could be said in 2 paragraphs of text, but circumcision isn't for that reason. Circumcision decreases the rate of STD transmissions (as you don't get infected right away and the viruses/germs take a few hours to penetrate your skin which is done easier if they get stuck under the foreskin) and although using protection makes it obsolete, it's also for people suffering from phimosis, so depending on the case circumcision is not only good but also necessary... Don't know what the video says exactly but when I watch it I'll post again. And yes, maybe not EoF...


But it can't be said in two paragraphs of text. He goes into the history of all of it, all of the culprits, the types of circumcisions from the quick snippets to the literal baby dick sucking, the faulty science, the lies... honestly it goes into everything you just mentioned and debunks it all plus many other things you didn't know about. You'd do better to just watch it before commenting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



markehmus said:


> kind of a loner most of my life and yet i have known 2 people who had to get this done in their late teens  due to infection , i chose to avoid my boys getting it done late cuz at 7 days old they never knew the dif anyway and it saved them any chance of going through shit later , i was done as an infant and never complained about it ...
> 
> ... if it causes less feeling having it done  , oh well , i cant complain ... and less feeling would mean lasting longer  so im sure my partners wouldn't complain


Your friend's parents should've told them to wash their dicks....


----------



## markehmus (Jul 28, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> Your friend's parents should've told them to wash their dicks....



even i told them to wak it with a bar of soap , some dont have aseasy a life i guess.

but hey this is the internet , you can find a video to back up whatever you wanna believe , just do whats best for you


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

Viri said:


> Oh god, it's like the Silent Hill wiki shit storm all over again!
> 
> https://archive.is/X0gkm


OH MY GOD 

IS THIS REAL 

THIS IS BEAUTIFUL 

Holy shit people get so uptight about excess dick skin.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 28, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> No one's forcing parents to circumcise their kids. It looks neater, it has religious roots that people still recongnize, it's not a big deal at all


not a big deal to cut someone without consent . . . ? it matters not what my parents want there not the ones getting cut


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 28, 2018)

Yea, they got me, but not my son.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Jul 28, 2018)

poor muricans


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> OH MY GOD
> 
> IS THIS REAL
> 
> ...



Excess?


----------



## Bimmel (Jul 28, 2018)

Can somebody sum this up for me? And no, I don't watch a video that long. It's about circumcision and.. cleaning your dick?

Why should I circumcise my dear genitals?


----------



## Meteor7 (Jul 28, 2018)

Ended up watching this through to the very end, to my slight surprise, and while he does seem to roll off his rocker at a few points and present a lot of his broad opinion as objective fact, he's by no means incorrect (if the research presented is sound) and this is something I'd consider more than critical for prospective parents to be aware of. More than that, it's also relevant to acknowledge how our societal and scientific structure is vulnerable to compromise, and is indeed continually being compromised, by the propagation of misinformation, deliberate and accidental. For this subject in particular, it's a pretty glaring double standard that's been able to be slipped under the radar for this long. I'm glad he's pursuing the matter fervor, even if he does come off as a loon dipped in chocolate at points (especially towards the end, geez, wow), and while I don't appreciate every one of his moral assertions, and I don't think their frequency and overblown verbiage really had a place in this analysis, I'm glad the finger of blame is being pointed clearly and firmly at those bodies/concepts/people responsible. I do wish he explained and proved more about what he called the "billion dollar industry harvesting human genitals" and less time repeating points, but hey, I'm not sorry I watched it, and I do consider the message highly important.


----------



## DKB (Jul 28, 2018)

I use my smegma for my sandwiches. Extra cheesy.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

barronwaffles said:


> Excess?


You ever see a man with too much foreskin? It ain't pretty. Those people need to be circumcized for their health. There is more skin than penis.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> You ever see a man with too much foreskin? It ain't pretty. Those people need to be circumcized for their health. There is more skin than penis.



Sure, phimosis can be a legitimate reason for partial removal of the foreskin but I don't think that's what the arguments here are about.


----------



## cearp (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> You ever see a man with too much foreskin? It ain't pretty. Those people need to be circumcized for their health. There is more skin than penis.


Ok, so don't make it 100% illegal. Make it legal only for medical necessity.
Try finding a doctor that will take my healthy toenails off so they don't turn ingrown!
Hurting babies for no true reason is wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

People get upset about this topic because it's too late for the circumcized people.
They don't want to get upset that they are missing something, a sensitive part of the body.
If it was me, I'd probably try to defend/forget about it because there's nothing you can really do. (the skin pulling stuff is weird, better the nothing I guess)


----------



## Viri (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> OH MY GOD
> 
> IS THIS REAL
> 
> ...


He's the admin too.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 28, 2018)

Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, some people might simply just not care at all.

While a bit off-topic, how do people feel about designer babies?


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 28, 2018)

Thank you. It raises my spirits to see this being talked about. I hope this barbarism is put out to pasture along with its female counterpart.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

cearp said:


> Ok, so don't make it 100% illegal. Make it legal only for medical necessity.
> Try finding a doctor that will take my healthy toenails off so they don't turn ingrown!
> Hurting babies for no true reason is wrong.
> 
> ...


Babies get hurt just from being born. Time to send them back in! I agree with you one that second part tho.



FGFlann said:


> Thank you. It raises my spirits to see this being talked about. I hope this barbarism is put out to pasture along with its female counterpart.


----------



## cearp (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Babies get hurt just from being born. Time to send them back in!


I usually try to reply to quotes but I don't really have anything to say here...
You're not being serious (posting pictures, making jokes etc)


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


>


What's confusing you?


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

cearp said:


> I usually try to reply to quotes but I don't really have anything to say here...
> You're not being serious (posting pictures, making jokes etc)


Half yes, yes no. This topic is clearly fueled by men trying to protect "muh masculinity". Circumcision isn't even a topic of debate because it doesn't hurt anyone in the longrun. It hurts to get it done as an adult, which is why doctors tell parents to get it done young. It means absolutely nothing in the long run.

Or maybe this hateful thread is fueled by circumcised males who long for their lost dick skin. Who knows.



FGFlann said:


> What's confusing you?


Mind uh explaining what on earth that "female equivalent" is? Women don't get circumcised.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Mind uh explaining what on earth that "female equivalent" is? Women don't get circumcised.


The mutilation of genitalia in the name of tradition is not gender specific, and the campaign against it is well documented. I'm sure you're aware of it, but simply not willing to accept that they are equivalent.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> What's confusing you?


Actually nevermind I just looked that shit up like a good kid. Unlike male circumcision, it seems the female version is more about control of women's sexuality rather than hygeine. Literally cutting down the clitoris and labia barely enough to expel urine and menstraution. That shit is terrifying. At least men keep their penises. Holy shit.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Actually nevermind I just looked that shit up like a good kid. Unlike male circumcision, it seems the female version is more about control of women's sexuality rather than hygeine. Literally cutting down the clitoris and labia holes enough to expel urine and menstraution. That shit is terrifying. At least men keep their penises. Holy shit.


Hygiene has very little to do with it, especially in the modern era. Not to mention it was introduced as a puritanical measure to curb masturbation, which is definitely about control of sexuality. But to be honest, if you aren't capable of using soap correctly in 21st century America, then you should correctly be labeled a barbarian. The bodily integrity, and right to self determination of children is paramount.


----------



## Kigiru (Jul 28, 2018)

Circumating kids because of some religious bs? Lel stop it, you hurt your children not even knowing what direction they will choose in their adult life.
Circumating yourself when you're completely aware of what it is and how it works? Go ahead, it's your dick. For what matters you can chop it off and i could not care less about it.

It's for me the same as crossdressing/gender/sexuality stuff - If you're mature enought to make your own choice then fine, but putting your 5 yo son in a skirt and full make-up (and i saw situations like this) is sickening example of being an awful parent.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Half yes, yes no. This topic is clearly fueled by men trying to protect "muh masculinity".



Or fueled by men (and women) who wonder:  "who in their right mind think it's a good idea to take a knife to a baby's dick without a really good reason?"



Pluupy said:


> Circumcision isn't even a topic of debate because it doesn't hurt anyone in the longrun.



Eating the placenta probably doesn't hurt anyone in the longrun, but I don't think we'd tolerate that as a general cultural practice.  Eating miscarriages probably doesn't hurt anyone in the longrun, but I don't think we'd tolerate that as a general cultural practice.  A long lists of physical or mental abuses to infants/children (if sufficient young enough) probably doesn't hurt anyone in the longrun, but I don't think we'd tolerate that as a general cultural practice.



Pluupy said:


> It hurts to get it done as an adult, which is why doctors tell parents to get it done young. It means absolutely nothing in the long run.



So, should we have removal of the appendix, one lung, one kidney, one teste/ovary, and a substantial part of the liver--all can get cancer--be standard preemptive medicine on the very young because possible hurt to their adult self can occur in the future?  You see, if you try to use any sort of logic to try to justify the practice, the same logic can be used to justify a bunch of more absurd practices.

It's clear that when people point out how absurd circumcision is, the retort is to pull up excuses and not look for reasons.  It's precisely because there's so few good reasons.  That's reason enough to be "fueled" upon just about any practice that is forced on millions of people.


----------



## GensokyoIceFairy (Jul 28, 2018)

First thing I think about when I see this thread is this scene from East is East: 

But yeah, circumisation is indeed a religious practise that has mythical benefits. If you're hygienic then there's really no difference...


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 28, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> So, should we have removal of the appendix, one lung, one kidney, one teste/ovary, and a substantial part of the liver--all can get cancer--be standard preemptive medicine on the very young because possible hurt to their adult self can occur in the future?  You see, if you try to use any sort of logic to try to justify the practice, the same logic can be used to justify a bunch of more absurd practices.
> 
> It's clear that when people point out how absurd circumcision is, the retort is to pull up excuses and not look for reasons.  It's precisely because there's so few good reasons.  That's reason enough to be "fueled" upon just about any practice that is forced on millions of people.


You know very well that is not the same. Getting circumcision is comparable to getting your wisdom teeth removed when they first come out. Getting your ears pierced. Not removal of organs.


----------



## GensokyoIceFairy (Jul 28, 2018)

Kigiru said:


> Circumating kids because of some religious bs? Lel stop it, you hurt your children not even knowing what direction they will choose in their adult life.
> Circumating yourself when you're completely aware of what it is and how it works? Go ahead, it's your dick. For what matters you can chop it off and i could not care less about it.
> 
> It's for me the same as crossdressing/gender/sexuality stuff - If you're mature enought to make your own choice then fine, but putting your 5 yo son in a skirt and full make-up (and i saw situations like this) is sickening example of being an awful parent.


Regarding the latter part. It's terrible, but what's worse is a parent not wanting there kid to transition when they realise who they really are at 14-15, thinking all transgenders should follow the stereotypical "I know since I was 5". My parents are like that.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 28, 2018)

GensokyoIceFairy said:


> Regarding the latter part. It's terrible, but what's worse is a parent not wanting there kid to transition when they realise who they really are at 14-15, thinking all transgenders should follow the stereotypical "I know since I was 5". My parents are like that.


Circumcision cannot be compared to transgender stuff by a long shot. This shouldn't be a transgender debate thread or whatever, but all I'm gointg to say is a 14-15 year old does not have the experince to be able to transition at that time of their life. Those are his/hers formative years. They are very emotionally vulnurable at that time.


----------



## GensokyoIceFairy (Jul 28, 2018)

VinLark said:


> Circumcision cannot be compared to transgender stuff by a long shot. This shouldn't be a transgender debate thread or whatever, but all I'm gointg to say is a 14-15 year old does not have the experince to be able to transition at that time of their life. Those are his/hers formative years. They are very emotionally vulnurable at that time.


i was replying to part of another post 

and I meant parents that think teens can't be trans if there were no signs when they were really younger, i'm 16 now, thought about it for about 2-3 years and my parents got the idea that someones told me i should be a girl, when it was my thoughts alone all along!!


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> You know very well that is not the same. Getting circumcision is comparable to getting your wisdom teeth removed when they first come out. Getting your ears pierced. Not removal of organs.



So, preemptive organ removal is not okay then?  Btw, getting your wisdom teeth removed is not really comparable to getting your ears pierced, but it's interesting that you bring up cosmetic body modification like that.  What's your feeling on tattooing babies?  Removing nails as another person suggested?  Permanent hair removal?  Is it all fair game so long as you don't cut someone open?

The real issue I'm having is I can almost certainly come up with a ton of examples where "that is not the same" and you can dismiss it but until I hear a compelling standard for why circumcision should be allowed and get a grouping of similar procedures that should be allowed, it all is pretty clearly entirely arbitrary.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 28, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> You know very well that is not the same. Getting circumcision is comparable to getting your wisdom teeth removed when they first come out. Getting your ears pierced. Not removal of organs.


you sound ignorant on many levels . . . first getting your teeth removed is to prevent the enviable pain of of your own teeth cutting your gums and cheek on a daily basis thus removing them is improving quality of life 
second piercing a baby's ears is is also immoral and a violation of said babys basic human rights simply because the baby is unable to protest does not mean the baby should not get the opportunity to choose . . . lets fast forward the babys life he's 13 now and you realize you forgot to put holes in his ears as a baby . . . would you drag your child kicking and screaming into the tattoo parlor and force him down ...? 
third perhaps you dont understand the skin itself is considered an organ and to remove all or part of an organ as you allude to should only be done when needed


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> you sound ignorant on many levels . . . first getting your teeth removed is to prevent the enviable pain of of your own teeth cutting your gums and cheek on a daily basis thus removing them is improving quality of life
> second piercing a baby's ears is is also immoral and a violation of said babys basic human rights simply because the baby is unable to protest does not mean the baby should not get the opportunity to choose . . . lets fast forward the babys life he's 13 now and you realize you forgot to put holes in his ears as a baby . . . would you drag your child kicking and screaming into the tattoo parlor and force him down ...?
> third perhaps you dont understand the skin itself is considered an organ and to remove all or part of an organ as you allude to should only be done when needed


Removal of the foreskin helps to prevent infection, easier to keep clean. And babies don't have human rights, they're property. Especially from a legal standpoint.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 29, 2018)

So... Four pages, but i have no idea what this has to do with America/the USA. I thought that only Jews practiced it, which means that an open discussion on whether it is necessary, beneficiary or harmfull goes straight out the window. Of course, if Americans join in on the action, then the discussion will be even more of a debate than that.

So... Not that i believe I'll ever convince anyone, but here's my opinion (without having watched the video) : do more research, damnit.
Yes, when i was young, we were told things like"better for hygiene", but a lot of those"conventional wisdoms" on othrr fields turned out to be false. If there really is harm in circumcision, then it should be visible in a large portion of circumcized men. Likewise... If it was a real advantage, men would be standing in line to get it done.

Truth is: it gets done on such a young age that it's impossible to predict the consequence otherwise.

The thing that stroke me as pretty bizarre is that feminists (who even have the audacity to say that they want EQUAL rights) see no harm in circumcision of boys but want it outlawed for girls. I'm not one to argue on why it's wrong, but all those arguments are exactly the same for boys.


----------



## nando (Jul 29, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> "Americans" is the name of the people who live in the USA as "america" is the last part of the name of our country. If there was a country called "central america" or "north america", they could be called americans  but they're not, so just us from the USA are called americans.




right. like there is no such thing as Europeans cause there is no country named europe


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> So... Four pages, but i have no idea what this has to do with America/the USA. I thought that only Jews practiced it, which means that an open discussion on whether it is necessary, beneficiary or harmfull goes straight out the window. Of course, if Americans join in on the action, then the discussion will be even more of a debate than that.
> 
> So... Not that i believe I'll ever convince anyone, but here's my opinion (without having watched the video) : do more research, damnit.
> Yes, when i was young, we were told things like"better for hygiene", but a lot of those"conventional wisdoms" on othrr fields turned out to be false. If there really is harm in circumcision, then it should be visible in a large portion of circumcized men. Likewise... If it was a real advantage, men would be standing in line to get it done.
> ...


Female circumcision is often having the clitoris removed. It would be the equivalent of having the head of your penis removed completely. Quite a different scenario.

The reason so many Americans are circumcised is because it was pushed into the mainstream here really hard back in like the 40s or 50s. It became the social norm.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jul 29, 2018)

Not surprised, Americans (in regard of the law) also think it's ok to torture cats and dogs to remove their claws and have no understanding of how badly it will affect their life to castrate them at the age of 4 months (mandatory in LA), while pretending it will improve their lifespan and reduce their aggressiveness.
They seem to hate anything that's got to do with the penis .

It's funny when one of the first thing people ask me when they find out I came from europe is about whether i'm cut or not... xD


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> Not surprised, Americans (in regard of the law) also think it's ok to torture cats and dogs to remove their claws and have no understanding of how badly it will affect their life to castrate them at the age of 4 months (mandatory in LA), while pretending it will improve their lifespan and reduce their aggressiveness.
> They seem to hate anything that's got to do with the penis .
> 
> It's funny when one of the first thing people ask me when they find out I came from europe is about whether i'm cut or not... xD


Wow, I've got a comment for everyone. We fix our pets because the population of stray animals is nearly out of control. The quality of life for these animals is horrendous.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 29, 2018)

Again, what do you people think about designer babies?

Maybe in the future using genetic modifications, circumcision can happen before you are even born.


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Jul 29, 2018)

I don't think near enough about my or anyone else's wang for this to even remotely bother me.

I think the people who do might be the type to advocate anti-vaccination or look past forced patriotism and the "right" religion.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Wow, I've got a comment for everyone. We fix our pets because the population of stray animals is nearly out of control. The quality of life for these animals is horrendous.


This is true all over the world. It hardly justifies "fixing" (a word that does not represent what it actually is) a dog at 4 months when the consequences on his natural development are horrendous.

And responsible dog owners don't let their dog walk around freely. It's a bit more difficult for cats I'll admit.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 29, 2018)

Meh I don't think it really matters all that much anyway. In my experience with women... Most of them strongly prefer circumcised men for some reason. I am sure it is a personal preference and maybe some women would prefer uncircumcised men but I have yet to have a woman tell me that. Please note that I am no Don Juan but I have been with close to 20 women... and discussed this very topic with probably 3 times that amount of women (women feel comfortable around me what can I say lol) 

It's really a non issue, if you feel like your kids should be circumcised, from my experience there seems to be no down side with only a wider variety of American women who will probably sleep with you... That to me seems like a pretty large upside in favor of doing it. 

Just my 2 cents, could be completely wrong and anecdotal but I "deal with it" lol

Edit: On the plus side for not being circumcised I guess getting piercings in your junk might be easier? lol


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 29, 2018)

A non-issue? Never being able to experience the full experience of sex the way nature intended is a non-issue? Having that forcibly taken away from you long before you're able to give consent is a non-issue? Subjecting you to a ritual mutilation without consent is a non-issue? Forcing a jewish religious practice on non-jews is a non-issue? Having removed a large piece of your genitals that nature intended for you to have based on nothing but falsehoods is a non-issue to you? Having some weird freak suck on your dick when you're a baby is a non-issue to you?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Women in America may prefer the look of a mutilated penis, but that's simply because that's what they're used to. They don't know that that isn't what a dick is supposed to look like. And women lose out on the experience of sex as well if they're engaging with someone who has a mutilated penis.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> And babies don't have human rights, they're property.


What the fuck

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Pluupy said:


> You know very well that is not the same. Getting circumcision is comparable to getting your wisdom teeth removed when they first come out. Getting your ears pierced. Not removal of organs.


What the fuck?

Would you ever pierce the ears of your infant son?


If you really want to chop off a piece of your body to "keep it clean" because you don't feel like washing your dick in the morning it's fine. But please, PLEASE leave the kids alone. You can chop any part of your own body when you turn 18.


----------



## ThoD (Jul 29, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> What the fuck


Legally speaking that's actually how things are, if under age of consent for a certain thing, you are treated as your parents'/guardian's property and they have full legal power to make you do what they want.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 29, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Legally speaking that's actually how things are, if under age of consent for a certain thing, you are treated as your parents'/guardian's property and they have full legal power to make you do what they want.


"Legal" power, yes. Doesn't mean that they can just abuse you. Also, he said "especially in the law", so he must think that babies don't have human rights, period. That's sickening.

Do you think that female genital mutilation is fine in certain Arab countries just because it's legal?


----------



## ThoD (Jul 29, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> "Legal" power, yes. Doesn't mean that they can just abuse you. Also, he said "especially in the law", so he must think that babies don't have human rights, period. That's sickening.
> 
> Do you think that female genital mutilation is fine in certain Arab countries just because it's legal?


You are confusing morally and legaly acceptable... In an earlier post before all this blew up I said that what I think is best is to wait until 14-16 to see if it's NECESSARY to circumcise, that doesn't go for just boys but girls too (there are rare cases where it's important to do it to girls if there's a health risk involved).


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> What the fuck
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


You know why you have to wait till 18? Because before that, you're legally property. I'm not saying its necessarily right, I'm just saying that's how it is. A baby can't protest vaccines, corrective cleft pallet surgery, etc. But we do it anyway. Its not a because we want to torture children, its because we do what we believe is in their best interest. You may not like if I choose to have a son and get him circumcised, but.. He's my property, not yours.


----------



## Kingy (Jul 29, 2018)

Another video with great points that is relevant to the topic:


----------



## wormdood (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Removal of the foreskin helps to prevent infection,


barely



WeedZ said:


> easier to keep clean.


true . . . but your leg would be easier to clean without that pesky foot with all those toes



WeedZ said:


> And babies don't have human rights, they're property. Especially from a legal standpoint.


property like my tshirt . . . i can set my tshirt on fire and not break any laws . . . yeah! . . . not property



WeedZ said:


> Female circumcision is often having the clitoris removed. It would be the equivalent of having the head of your penis removed completely


not quite as the clitoris is the part with the most nerve endings as is the foreskin not the head


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> barely
> 
> true . . . but your leg would be easier to clean without that pesky foot with all those toes
> 
> ...



My house is my property, but I'm pretty sure its illegal for me to set that on fire.

I'm not so sure the nerve ending thing is true..


----------



## ThoD (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> property like my tshirt . . . i can set my tshirt on fire and not break any laws . . . yeah! . . . not property


When something is your property, it doesn't mean no laws are applied to it, they just happen to be more specific. For example, setting fire to your house or demolishing it IS illegal even if it's YOUR property and there are no people or buildings around and same goes for wanting to build something on a plot of land. It's all case by case and while babies/kids are basically your property, there are laws specifying some things you can and can't do.



WeedZ said:


> My house is my property, but I'm pretty sure its illegal for me to set that on fire.
> 
> I'm not so sure the nerve ending thing is true..


About the nerve endings, in males, the most nerve endings are at right under the head (as it's the same part that becomes the clitoris when it's still unborn and is instead a girl).


----------



## wormdood (Jul 29, 2018)

. . . no you two confuse property with custody


----------



## ThoD (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> . . . no you two confuse property with custody


Actually no, you don't have custody of your house, it's your property, but you still can't burn it down. Also, you BOTH have custody over your kids AND they are legally your property.



f0xrolder said:


> See how weird this site has become!!!! Why are threads like this even allowed??? Look at the vitriol being flung about and absolutely nonsensical garbage being propagated in this thread not to mention other socio/political agenda topics!!!!
> 
> 
> Can A MOD PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT COMPLETELY I"M OUT!


Someone just needs to hit the nuke again and give us all 502-504 errors to end this for now because I agree it's gotten way to agenda-driven at this point...


----------



## wormdood (Jul 29, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Actually no, you don't have custody of your house, it's your property,


ok you own a house have no ares nor a will . . . and you die . . . what happens to said house . . . ownership of any and everything is only temporary . . . a more realistic example i own a house but dont pay taxes on it guess what happens to the house i own . . . you guessed it it gets taken from me so yeah its illegal to burn the house you own as you dont truly own  it 


ThoD said:


> Also, you BOTH have custody over your kids AND they are legally your property.


if this were true then your kids would not be able to open a civil suite ageist you but guess what they can do


----------



## BORTZ (Jul 29, 2018)

I legit almost trashed this thread and spambotted the OP because I thought this was spam LOL


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 29, 2018)

You can't sell children. You can sell property. What a ridiculous thing to say.


----------



## cearp (Jul 29, 2018)

The circumcized head is different from the normal one. 
It keratinizes, meaning skin the gets a little harder, thicker, like a callous. This is because the foreskin is not there to protect it and keep it from drying out.
This means there is less feeling etc. (Just like protection can affect feeling, so can a head with thicker skin) 

I would miss mine if it left, if you don't have one you won't know what the feeling is like. There are probably videos about it, the movement in sex is different. The foreskin acts as a wrapper/tube, a bit like an accordion? I can't explain it well, but it really complements the action, much more than just inserting a stick in and out of a hole.




deinonychus71 said:


> Not surprised, Americans (in regard of the law) also think it's ok to torture cats and dogs to remove their claws and have no understanding of how badly it will affect their life to castrate them at the age of 4 months (mandatory in LA), while pretending it will improve their lifespan and reduce their aggressiveness.


What negative affects does it have getting your dog or cat neutered? I honestly don't know much about it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 29, 2018)

Wtf even is this thread.  

There's no issue with sensitivity on a circumcised penis, that much I can tell you from experience.  In fact the belief for a long time was that circumcision actually increased sensitivity.  I'm sure with large enough sample sizes, we'd find that there's minimal/no real difference either way.


----------



## cearp (Jul 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There's no issue with sensitivity on a circumcised penis, that much I can tell you from experience.


yeah for you it's not numb lol - but it's less sensitive than it should be, because your skin is thicker there than it should be.
https://www.circinfo.org/Warren.html


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> babies don't have human rights


What the fuck, indeed. As far as the weak apologetics for this practice go, this one takes the cake.

I'd encourage any prospective parent to watch a video of a newborn being circumcized, to see if they still feel the indifference towards the procedure after they see the child howling in agony while part of it is cut away forever.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Female circumcision is often having the clitoris removed. It would be the equivalent of having the head of your penis removed completely. Quite a different scenario.


I'm not so sure about the scenario being so different. The foreskin keeps the head hidden, and as such: sensitive. I know one testimony isn't much to go on, but I read about someone having a circumcision on a later age, and he described what would be logical: with the sensitive part "out in the open" (that is, in the underwear), it hardens and loses its sensitivity. The result for him was that sexual intercourse was dramatically less enjoyable.



WeedZ said:


> The reason so many Americans are circumcised is because it was pushed into the mainstream here really hard back in like the 40s or 50s. It became the social norm.


Ouch...that really sucks. 
I hardly dare to ask, but...what's roughly the percentage of cut males over there? 


Psionic Roshambo said:


> It's really a non issue, if you feel like your kids should be circumcised, from my experience there seems to be no down side with only a wider variety of American women who will probably sleep with you... That to me seems like a pretty large upside in favor of doing it.


Hmm...I'll admit that it's a strong argument. 
But in a more serious answer: if that's really an upside, then by all means LET THE KIDS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES! (when they come of age, obviously)



deinonychus71 said:


> This is true all over the world. It hardly justifies "fixing" (a word that does not represent what it actually is) a dog at 4 months when the consequences on his natural development are horrendous.
> 
> And responsible dog owners don't let their dog walk around freely. It's a bit more difficult for cats I'll admit.


Sorry, but I really gotta side with @WeedZ and a few others here. Of course, the fact that I have a bitch on my lap just about everyday makes me subjective.

When we got her neutered, she was a bit groggy for a day and walked a bit funny for a week (which for a large part had to do with the proverbial diaper she had to wear to prevent her clawing at the operation wires underneath her belly*. After that, it was EXACTLY as if nothing had happened. I'm very willing to line up a few dogs and bet all my savings on that you can't tell by their behavior which one is neutered and which one isn't. That whole "it'll calm them down" _might_ be true, but I certainly can't tell.

And...isn't it weird that you talk about a single routine operation as being torture, while at the same time assessing that you should never let your dog run around freely. Any dog owner can tell you that the difference between a dog on a leech and a dog that runs free is a major one. Of course you need responsibility, but jezus...dogs really need to be able to run free from time to time (within boundaries, of course. As dog owners, you're still responsible what might happen. But suddenly having to take care of a whole nest shouldn't be one of the risks).

*if we let nature run her course on THAT, she would've scarred herself for life.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm not so sure about the scenario being so different. The foreskin keeps the head hidden, and as such: sensitive. I know one testimony isn't much to go on, but I read about someone having a circumcision on a later age, and he described what would be logical: with the sensitive part "out in the open" (that is, in the underwear), it hardens and loses its sensitivity. The result for him was that sexual intercourse was dramatically less enjoyable.
> 
> 
> Ouch...that really sucks.
> ...


I don't know what the exact percentage is, but its definitely a majority. I'd guess at least a solid 80%.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Wtf even is this thread.
> 
> There's no issue with sensitivity on a circumcised penis, that much I can tell you from experience.  In fact the belief for a long time was that circumcision actually increased sensitivity.  I'm sure with large enough sample sizes, we'd find that there's minimal/no real difference either way.


When were you circumcised? As a baby?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 29, 2018)

cearp said:


> yeah for you it's not numb lol - but it's less sensitive than it should be, because your skin is thicker there than it should be.
> https://www.circinfo.org/Warren.html


Honestly if it was less sensitive that would've been helpful for some of my younger years, rofl.



dimmidice said:


> When were you circumcised? As a baby?


Yeah.  My brother wasn't circumcised and my parents aren't Jewish, so it was just kind of the thing to do culturally for a while.  Considering the dude is usually circumcised in porn, it's probably still very common in the US.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Honestly if it was less sensitive that would've been helpful for some of my younger years, rofl.
> 
> 
> Yeah.  My brother wasn't circumcised and my parents aren't Jewish, so it was just kind of the thing to do culturally for a while.  Considering the dude is usually circumcised in porn, it's probably still very common in the US.


If you had it from birth you have absolutely no basis for the claim that it doesn't harm sensitivity. Because it's all you've ever known.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 29, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> If you had it from birth you have absolutely no basis for the claim that it doesn't harm sensitivity. Because it's all you've ever known.


Well hopefully we don't get too many adult circumcisions reporting in.  

What's exposed by circumcision is also very sensitive, not just the head, which is plenty sensitive on its own.  That said, I think studying this objectively would be near impossible, because different people already have different sensitivity levels and experience pleasure in different ways _without_ taking circumcision into account.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 29, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> If you had it from birth you have absolutely no basis for the claim that it doesn't harm sensitivity. Because it's all you've ever known.


i cant believe anyone who cant experience would say there is no difference . . . i know its a a little bit of a stretch but a colorblind man does not feel anything is missing when he sees a rainbow as he can still see all the shades of grey he is used to and while the normal man will feel sorry for the colorblind man he will not care as it was never an issue for him . . . imagine if you were rendered colorblind at birth because it was the thing to do


----------



## Xzi (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> i cant believe anyone who cant experience would say there is no difference . . . i know its a a little bit of a stretch but a colorblind man does not feel anything is missing when he sees a rainbow as he can still see all the shades of grey he is used to and while the normal man will feel sorry for the colorblind man he will not care as it was never an issue for him . . . imagine if you were rendered colorblind at birth because it was the thing to do


As long as a dude can get his rocks off he's not going to feel like or care that he's supposedly "missing out" on something better.  The grass is always greener on the other side.  Everybody just needs to enjoy their own experience.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 29, 2018)

wormdood said:


> i cant believe anyone who cant experience would say there is no difference . . . i know its a a little bit of a stretch but a colorblind man does not feel anything is missing when he sees a rainbow as he can still see all the shades of grey he is used to and while the normal man will feel sorry for the colorblind man* he will not care as it was never an issue for him . . .* imagine if you were rendered colorblind at birth because it was the thing to do


Except everyone seems to care about our weiners.

But the way, don't we all feel something missing?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 29, 2018)

Okay...just watched the entire movie of the opening post. Man...that guy is seriously PISSED!!!

Worse: he's pissed with very good reason and brings strong stuff. Researches, quotes, context...you name it. Yes, it's a long watch, but a pretty darn interesting one. I don't just say that because it aligns with my own view on the topic (which kind of makes my posts in this thread at best as someone blatantly copying the topic), but because the guy honestly, really sees this as an issue. And backs up why that is.

Nonetheless, the OP could've used a summary. He brings his speech down to five bullet points (Clopper's Five Censored Facts) which he'll reveal as he goes along. If you want, you can skip to around 1:35. From that point on, it's more of a global view on the matter rather than breaking everything down.

To those lazy or at work: here are the points he discusses (and to a very decent degree: proves) :


Spoiler



1) rabbis designed and implemented circumcision to damage Jewish children's sexuality
2)  American physicians adopted circumcision to damage our children's sexuality
3) circumcision significantly damages you for life. the foreskin is important
4) the US media continues to feed us the AAP's Circumcision Recommendation which is a blatant unapologetically LIE  motivated  by religious ideologies
5) male and female circumcision are identical


----------



## markehmus (Jul 29, 2018)

wow "life threatening mutilation of a baby"

its not like they use a double bladed ax and pin the head down like a chicken.

"harvesting"  haha , its not like the skin is kept by the hospital.

my twins foreskins fell off in a diaper and was taken out in the trash. no knife was used , no risk of death , not even as much pain as getting an ear pierced .... and yes i watched both get circumcised and there was less pain shown than my teenage daughters getting their ears pierced.

and if  circumcision deadens the sensitivity of the skin on the penis by it not having this lil protective tuque its not like i noticed or want less sex, its fukn amazing still.

....and your wife or girlfriend  will be thankful cuz i bet they already bitch you dont last long enough.


i see fear of the unknown plays a big part on this morally biased set of videos, and the opinions of these people who lived in a forum instead of getting out there.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Except everyone seems to care about our weiners.


my point though is we are colorblind-ly ignorant and that is the only reason we dont raise a stink. while in the grand scheme of things we had what is debate-ably either our most sensitive part (or at the very least the casing to which that would serve to keep the sensitive part sensitive) removed without consent nor the chance to use it . . . that in itself, dicks aside (. . . ba dum dum tiss) is/should be enough reason for this barbaric act to be relocated from America (/anywhere else they are idiotic enough to practice this act) to the history books


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 29, 2018)

I think the "circumcision reduces the chance of getting an STD" argument is weak, because it doesn't offer a significant change over an uncircumcised penis.
Another common fallacy used by people to justify circumcision is the appeal to tradition, stating that because the members of X family have always been circumcised, therefore it's correct to circumcise babies without their consent. You can see the circular logic here. By that same logic, treating homosexuals as mentally diseased people is also correct, as that's the way society thought for many centuries.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 29, 2018)

markehmus said:


> wow "life threatening mutilation of a baby"
> 
> its not like they use a double bladed ax and pin the head down like a chicken.
> 
> ...



Any surgical procedure carries a risk, even if the risk of that procedure is low. Circumcision does lead to death in rare cases, also infection, necrosis and total loss of the penis. For what is essentially a vanity procedure, it is a shocking thing to do to one's child.

Interesting tidbit is that foreskins are actually reused in other medical procedures and also in the cosmetics industry. The latter is quite grim if you ask me.

I shouldn't really touch on the shaming language at the end there, as I personally believe the sexual ramifications are the least important part of the issue, but it sounds an awful lot like projection.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 29, 2018)

I also think the "your child is your property" argument isn't very well-founded. Sure, you have a right to make decisions affecting your children, *so long as you can prove that it benefits them. *In the case of circumcision, the chances of acquiring an STD between a circumcised and a non-circumcised penis is insignificant.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Except everyone seems to care about our weiners.


Again, feel free to skin your own dick as much as you want. Just leave the infants alone.


----------



## markehmus (Jul 29, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> Any surgical procedure carries a risk, even if the risk of that procedure is low. Circumcision does lead to death in rare cases, also infection, necrosis and total loss of the penis. For what is essentially a vanity procedure, it is a shocking thing to do to one's child.
> 
> Interesting tidbit is that foreskins are actually reused in other medical procedures and also in the cosmetics industry. The latter is quite grim if you ask me.
> 
> I shouldn't really touch on the shaming language at the end there, as I personally believe the sexual ramifications are the least important part of the issue, but it sounds an awful lot like projection.



maybe in archaic times, but now theres no cut what so ever , its *a small cap and an elastic* ... *not some knife* and skin kept like some afterbirth
.... but you keep believing the bullshit you hear instead of watching it twice like i have , its simple, *less painful than a piercing and falls off in the diaper not in the hospital* . its not some surgery like you are led to believe.

and your generation should really enjoy this part , you have much less cleaning to do throughout the rest of your life.

...oh and assholes , ears and lips are all cut off the cow and disposed of ,  ... but hey i bet you fell for that shit when you were told that they were put in hotdogs


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 29, 2018)

markehmus said:


> maybe in archaic times, but now theres no cut what so ever , its *a small cap and an elastic* ... *not some knife* and skin kept like some afterbirth
> .... but you keep believing the bullshit you hear instead of watching it twice like i have , its simple, *less painful than a piercing and falls off in the diaper not in the hospital* . its not some surgery like you are led to believe.
> 
> and your generation should really enjoy this part , you have much less cleaning to do throughout the rest of your life


I can't just accept your anecdote as a universal truth, I'm very sorry. The simple fact remains that circumcision requires separation of skin from the body, it is a surgical procedure and carries risk, no matter how small.

The shaming language, again, really isn't necessary. Be civil. You don't know which generation I am part of, and it only diminishes receptivity to your writing.


----------



## markehmus (Jul 29, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> I can't just accept your anecdote as a universal truth, I'm very sorry. The simple fact remains that circumcision requires separation of skin from the body, it is a surgical procedure and carries risk, no matter how small.
> 
> The shaming language, again, really isn't necessary. Be civil. You don't know which generation I am part of, and it only diminishes receptivity to your writing.






less than a minute , no surgery , so uniformed yet so opinionated.

hurts more and takes longer to remove a wart.

im done , youre all out to believe the worst and havent seen shit in real life, yet your opinion is supposed to make some dramatic point


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 29, 2018)

markehmus said:


> View attachment 137589
> less than a minute , no surgery , so uniformed yet so opinionated.
> 
> hurts more and takes longer to remove a wart.
> ...



Goodbye then.Reply


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 29, 2018)

markehmus said:


> and your generation should really enjoy this part , you have much less cleaning to do throughout the rest of your life.


What's this obsession of "less cleaning" y'all have? We aren't talking about a one-room apartment, it's your body. You should always keep it clean. A small piece of skin doesn't slow you down for one hour lol


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 29, 2018)

markehmus said:


> maybe in archaic times, but now theres no cut what so ever , its *a small cap and an elastic* ... *not some knife* and skin kept like some afterbirth
> .... but you keep believing the bullshit you hear instead of watching it twice like i have , its simple, *less painful than a piercing and falls off in the diaper not in the hospital* . its not some surgery like you are led to believe.


You're right that it falls off if they use the tie it off method. But they do definitely cut it as well (there's different methods). And the tool you linked is used for both. The tie it off method also takes 6-12 days though, not mere minutes.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 29, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...just watched the entire movie of the opening post. Man...that guy is seriously PISSED!!!
> 
> Worse: he's pissed with very good reason and brings strong stuff. Researches, quotes, context...you name it. Yes, it's a long watch, but a pretty darn interesting one. I don't just say that because it aligns with my own view on the topic (which kind of makes my posts in this thread at best as someone blatantly copying the topic), but because the guy honestly, really sees this as an issue. And backs up why that is.
> 
> ...


I gotta watch the video now. I always knew that circumcision was used to suppress male sexuality, masturbation is bad belief. If this is true then wouldn't that put it on par with Middle East Female Genital Mutilation used to suppress female sexuality. Over there women have the belief thats it's better for them and are kept ignorant about negative effects. Then wouldn't the same be applied with male circumcision that males are kept ignorant about the negatives and think its for the better or is no big deal. People say that FGM is a form of female oppression then wouldn't the same be true that Circumcision is a form of male oppression if they are identical. I personally wouldn't consider it oppression though but if it does have huge negative effects then maybe?

I would have to set some time later on to watch it.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I gotta watch the video now. I always knew that circumcision was used to suppress male sexuality, masturbation is bad belief. If this is true then wouldn't that put it on par with Middle East Female Genital Mutilation used to suppress female sexuality. Over there women have the belief thats it's better for them and are kept ignorant about negative effects. Then wouldn't the same be applied with male circumcision that males are kept ignorant about the negatives and think its for the better or is no big deal. People say that FGM is a form of female oppression then wouldn't the same be true that Circumcision is a form of male oppression if they are identical. I personally wouldn't consider it oppression though but if it does have huge negative effects then maybe?
> 
> I would have to set some time later on to watch it.


It's the same concept. Severity wise though it's not comparable.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jul 29, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but I really gotta side with @WeedZ and a few others here. Of course, the fact that I have a bitch on my lap just about everyday makes me subjective.
> 
> When we got her neutered, she was a bit groggy for a day and walked a bit funny for a week (which for a large part had to do with the proverbial diaper she had to wear to prevent her clawing at the operation wires underneath her belly*. After that, it was EXACTLY as if nothing had happened. I'm very willing to line up a few dogs and bet all my savings on that you can't tell by their behavior which one is neutered and which one isn't. That whole "it'll calm them down" _might_ be true, but I certainly can't tell.
> 
> ...



I don't want to get into details because it gets off topic, but here's some insights as to why it's bad, especially BEFORE puberty (which is what the law in LA forces you to do):
https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2016/07/27/neutering-spaying-effects.aspx
https://dogsfirst.ie/health-issues/dog-neutering/
If you look at the "pros", there is literally just one that actually -has- to do with the pet health (ovary/testicle cancer, and there are natural workarounds versus other risks caused by neutering too early https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/long-term-health-risks-benefits-spay-neuter-dogs/), everything else is about convenience around the house / with others. Aka something that can be done through training. Training is not torture, we do it to our own kids through education.
Also your dog has to be on leash in public spaces no matter what by law so it doesn't exactly change anything. That doesn't mean they have to stay on leash at all time either. If you have a yard you can let them run free under supervision (a neutered dog can escape just like an intact dog, so there again it doesn't change anything).

As one of the article says (and I can confirm for having lived most of my life in Europe) intact dogs are the norm in Europe, and they aren't more aggressive, there are less stray dogs (excluding Bulgaria/Romania etc) and they live just as long.

If you gotta read just one link I suggest the third one, it is as objective as you can get and takes into account recent findings.

Anyway, sorry for the off topic, I think it's gonna end up in a agree to disagree but that's how discussions go


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 30, 2018)

markehmus said:


> maybe in archaic times, but now theres no cut what so ever , its *a small cap and an elastic* ... *not some knife* and skin kept like some afterbirth
> .... but you keep believing the bullshit you hear instead of watching it twice like i have , its simple, *less painful than a piercing and falls off in the diaper not in the hospital* . its not some surgery like you are led to believe.
> 
> and your generation should really enjoy this part , you have much less cleaning to do throughout the rest of your life.
> ...


Even if the process is painless there are no good reasons to mutilate an infant's genitals. You permanently mess them up.

There are no pros, but a bunch of cons. It's crazy how widespread the practice is today.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 30, 2018)

nando said:


> right. like there is no such thing as Europeans cause there is no country named europe


I mentioned this in a previous post, but that is true  but there are no european countries with the name "europe" as the name of the country, so it's a bit harder than just that. 

I'm curious if the proper for is "north american" or "southern american". I know I don't hear it terribly often anyone to be referred to as just being from north america or south america.



invaderyoyo said:


> Even if the process is painless there are no good reasons to mutilate an infant's genitals. You permanently mess them up.
> 
> There are no pros, but a bunch of cons. It's crazy how widespread the practice is today.



Tradition and familiarity are uncomfortably powerful forces, it would seem


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> Even if the process is painless there are no good reasons to mutilate an infant's genitals.


Even then you still have to accept the assertion that the skin somehow just peels away without any trauma. Anybody who was intact could tell at a glance that it's not possible.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> Even if the process is painless there are no good reasons to mutilate an infant's genitals. You permanently mess them up.
> 
> There are no pros, but a bunch of cons. It's crazy how widespread the practice is today.


https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_-_does_it_prevent_hiv_and__aids/ask.htm#

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

I’d say that evidence provides arguments for both stances. @x65943 you’re in Medicine. What’re your thoughts?


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_-_does_it_prevent_hiv_and__aids/ask.htm#
> 
> https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons
> 
> ...


I like that the clinical trials cited as justification are performed in sub-saharan Africa, the HIV capital of the world, rather than the United States. This kind of disingenuous use of statistics really gets my back up.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> I like that the clinical trials cited as justification are performed in sub-saharan Africa, the HIV capital of the world, rather than the United States. This kind of disingenuous use of statistics really gets my back up.


That comes off as saying a malaria pills trial results are “disingenuous” because they were tried in Vietnam. Not really sure what your point is here tbh.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> That comes off as saying a malaria pills trial results are “disingenuous” because they were tried in Vietnam. Not really sure what your point is here tbh.


It's not the same situation for a start. A malaria pill is designed to be used in an environment where the risk of contracting malaria is prevalent and is the best method of doing so, hence why Malaria pills are not used in environments where they are unnecessary. Whereas in this case, data citing circumcision trials from African nations, where the risk of contracting disease is orders of magnitude higher, is being applied in a different environment. Not only is the risk of infection from unprotected sex alone significantly lower in developed nations, you need only see the comparable infection rates, to the United States, of western European nations where circumcision isn't a common practice to see that the procedure has negligible impact on the infection rates of a developed nation.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> It's not the same situation for a start. A malaria pill is designed to be used in an environment where the risk of contracting malaria is prevalent and is the best method of doing so, hence why Malaria pills are not used in environments where they are unnecessary. Whereas in this case, data citing circumcision trials from African nations, where the risk of contracting disease is orders of magnitude higher, is being applied in a different environment. Not only is the risk of infection from unprotected sex alone significantly lower in developed nations, you need only see the comparable infection rates, to the United States, of western European nations where circumcision isn't a common practice to see that the procedure has negligible impact on the infection rates of a developed nation.


Again, this makes no sense. If it’s shown to reduce risk in a high infection rate area, why would it not reduce risk in lower rate areas? It doesn’t matter what the infection rate is. On top of that, there were case studies showing evidence of defense against other diseases. Imo a lot of people here come across like they have an ax to grind for whatever reason. Religion seems to be the most likely. Another outrage flavor of the month.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Again, this makes no sense. If it’s shown to reduce risk in a high infection rate area, why would it not reduce risk in lower rate areas? It doesn’t matter what the infection rate is. On top of that, there were case studies showing evidence of defense against other diseases. Imo a lot of people here come across like they have an ax to grind for whatever reason. Religion seems to be the most likely. Another outrage flavor of the month.


That's just the thing, in an area of low risk of infection your circumcized penis isn't going to benefit you at all. The risk isn't there that requires it. Even in the studies themselves, the risk of infection to circumcized patients is still a lousy coin flip and has more to do with how you take care of yourself than having a foreskin. In the highest risk area on the planet it is all but ineffectual, in the lowest risk area on the planet it is unnecessary.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> That's just the thing, in an area of low risk of infection your circumcized penis isn't going to benefit you at all. The risk isn't there that requires it. Even in the studies themselves, the risk of infection to circumcized patients is still a lousy coin flip and has more to do with how you take care of yourself than having a foreskin. In the highest risk area on the planet it is all but ineffectual, in the lowest risk area on the planet it is unnecessary.


What if I wanna go smash some hookers in Bangkok tho?


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> What if I wanna go smash some hookers in Bangkok tho?


Protect yourself!


----------



## xXDungeon_CrawlerXx (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm glad I'm not circumcized.


----------



## gamefan5 (Jul 30, 2018)

xXDungeon_CrawlerXx said:


> I'm glad I'm not circumcized.


Same.

Although, some women have given me some WTF look during sexy time, like I was an alien LOL. Which is quite funny at times.
Which is understandable since mine is a bit of a special case.


----------



## x65943 (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_-_does_it_prevent_hiv_and__aids/ask.htm#
> 
> https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons
> 
> ...



I know that the WHO recommends the practice in certain areas due to its ability to slightly lower transmission of some STDs.

I think over all the practice is kind of useless, and that permanently altering a human's body without consent is morally questionable at best.

I think since the practice isn't very helpful or very harmful - that it doesn't matter much what the government's stance on the issue is.

If the government banned it tomorrow though (where I live) I might be a little miffed just because a weird part of my head wants my kid to be circumcised just like me. I think at this point it's just like that - family tradition.

So my opinion in general? There are slight benefits given the risks, but only in regions like Subsaharan Africa. No reason to have the procedure here. Pretty unethical in general. Only thing keeping the practice going is that it's so common in the US that uncut boys might get made fun of or feel uncomfortable nude.

Personal note. Will I circumcise my kid? I haven't decided. Rates of circumcision are actually falling pretty fast in the US due to decreased white birthrate (who tend to circumcise) and an increased Hispanic population (who tend not to circumcise). If circumcision falls into the minority position I probably won't do it. But if I feel like my kid will be singled out without the procedure - then he gets the cut.

(My uncle was born in the UK and moved here with his family when he was 2. Circumcision is not practiced there - so he was an uncut american at a time where everyone was circumcised - he experienced a lot of bullying and always told me and my sibs to cut the babies)


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

x65943 said:


> I know that the WHO recommends the practice in certain areas due to its ability to slightly lower transmission of some STDs.
> 
> I think over all the practice is kind of useless, and that permanently altering a human's body without consent is morally questionable at best.
> 
> ...


That's some nice, refreshing objectivity. (This is not sarcasm, just in case.)
I think most people here would agree that the traditional aspect of it is what keeps it going. Peer pressure is a hell of a thing, and I'll be damned if I can't say I empathize with you. I wish you and your child the best in any case.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jul 30, 2018)

I am circumcised. I kinda wish I wasn't because I have heard many times over that it makes the mans pecker more sensitive. I understand why my parents chose to do so so I am not pissed at them about it.

What pisses me off is the gender discrimination. In many (deranged) countries it is perfectly normal to do a female circumcision. The US is bitching and complaining that a female circumcision is unethical, mutilation, cruel, etc... but at the same time male circumcision is promoted. I think any circumcision is wrong, but the way that it is promoted that male genital mutilation is alright but anything done to a female is wrong is just showing the gender bias. The country is so full of double standards especially on the gender side of things. Absolutely pisses me off. Women have things so much better than men, but they complain so much more saying that they are oppressed. Damn feminists just want to have the upper hand on men and treat them as second class citizens.


----------



## Raverrevolution (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm so glad I'm uncut as I was born in Italy.  I couldn't imagine the difficulties being cut would bring to sex.  I mean I'm sure it's still awesome, but hell, I couldn't imagine having less sensitivity down there.

I love the argument that getting cut prevents diseases, because you could just say, "Well if you chop off your toe then it'll prevent you from getting ingrown toenails"  How about we chop our noses off, we'll never get runny noses anymore.  Oh man, I just realized something, if you chop and scoop ears out, you'll never get earwax.  Who wants to deal with snot and earwax anymore, f it, lets cut everything off!!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_-_does_it_prevent_hiv_and__aids/ask.htm#
> 
> https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons
> 
> ...



Sorry, but these sources are exactly the things rebuted in the original video.

To be fair, @invaderyoyo wasn't ENTIRELY correct in that there are "no pros but a bunch of cons". Hygiene and medical prevention are certainly pros...if they're correct. The problem is that the studies you're linking to are, unfortunately, more a smoke screen than actual studies.

Your first source claims "_The risk of heterosexual HIV infection is 2 to 8 times higher for uncircumcised men than for men who have been circumcised_." Wow. That's huge, right? I mean...If that were true, HIV infection should be significantly less in countries where a large part of the population is circumcised (meaning: Israel and USA). However...that isn't happening. Here, look at this:


Spoiler











Why isn't the rate different for the USA than in its neighboring countries? Why is it higher than in Europe?

I might be wrong, but the studies talked about in source #2 are probably the one downright DESTROYED in the opening video for having gross and even absurd deontological errors (they compared the HIV level of circumcised men with non-circumcised men...but forgot to mention that the former group was educated on proper use of condoms. So yeah...with those kinds of standards, it's not hard to "prove" that circumcision reduces the chance for HIV).

Your third source is a bit out of place: it doesn't really advice anything ("the benefits are not great enough to recommend _universal _newborn circumcision"). The dates are also interesting: the first one is from 1999, the second one from 2014, the third one from 2016. If there's any trend in them, I'd say that the medical world is slowly backpedaling from their original stance.


----------



## Raverrevolution (Jul 30, 2018)

Lol you gotta love how getting circumcised supposedly has all these pros that people in the USA list, yet 90% of the world doesn't and they're all doing just fine.  The logic to cut it off is so incredibly stupid.


----------



## x65943 (Jul 30, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I am circumcised. I kinda wish I wasn't because I have heard many times over that it makes the mans pecker more sensitive. I understand why my parents chose to do so so I am not pissed at them about it.
> 
> What pisses me off is the gender discrimination. In many (deranged) countries it is perfectly normal to do a female circumcision. The US is bitching and complaining that a female circumcision is unethical, mutilation, cruel, etc... but at the same time male circumcision is promoted. I think any circumcision is wrong, but the way that it is promoted that male genital mutilation is alright but anything done to a female is wrong is just showing the gender bias. The country is so full of double standards especially on the gender side of things. Absolutely pisses me off. Women have things so much better than men, but they complain so much more saying that they are oppressed. Damn feminists just want to have the upper hand on men and treat them as second class citizens.


To be fair the male equivalent of "female circumcision" would be cutting off the penis completely.

That's why it's more accurate to call what happens to females "female genital mutilation"

If women were truly getting the same procedure it would only involve recision of the clitoral hood - but the procedure is usually a full removal of the clitoris and often also of the labia.

So if guys got the most extreme case of FGM (female genital mutilation) it would be chopping off the penis (equivalent to clitoris) and testicular sac (equivalent to the labia).

Women do have special privileges in certain areas, but let's not cheapen that argument by creating false equivalencies.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jul 30, 2018)

x65943 said:


> To be fair the male equivalent of "female circumcision" would be cutting off the penis completely.
> 
> That's why it's more accurate to call what happens to females "female genital mutilation"
> 
> ...


I understand exactly what you mean. The equivalent that I am trying to make here is that it is wrong to do it to either gender. It is cutting off part of a persons body that they are too young to make a choice over most of the time.

From what I have read is that men that are not circumcised experience greater orgasms and last longer during sex than men whom were circumcised. If that is actually true then it is partly equivalent to a female circumcision because even after the procedure a woman can still experience an internal orgasm.

IIRC, the whole reason for a female circumcision was to prevent women from being promiscuous and wanting to have sex all the time just to get the orgasm. Sadly, in those countries that perform the procedure, women are treated as 3rd class humans, and sometimes even less than human.

I personally feel that I have been treated worse than most other women out there. All this BS about "white male privilege", but it is the men that get shafted in divorce and custody cases.

Yeah, sorry, I am going kinda off topic...


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 30, 2018)

x65943 said:


> To be fair the male equivalent of "female circumcision" would be cutting off the penis completely.
> 
> That's why it's more accurate to call what happens to females "female genital mutilation"
> 
> ...


It's to a different degree, but both procedures mutilate the genitals, both reduce sensitivity, and both are completely unnecessary.

Even if the risk of complication was zero, the tradeoffs wouldn't be even close to worth it. Circumcision should be considered a human rights violation.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

I would agree with @DeadlyFoez and @invaderyoyo that they are equivalent in the sense that they are performed upon people too young to consent, both for the purposes of exhibiting control of sexuality.

The fact that one is more destructive than the other shouldn't diminish the fact that the other is also unwarranted and the goal should be to eliminate both.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I understand exactly what you mean. The equivalent that I am trying to make here is that it is wrong to do it to either gender. It is cutting off part of a persons body that they are too young to make a choice over most of the time.
> 
> From what I have read is that men that are not circumcised experience greater orgasms and last longer during sex than men whom were circumcised. If that is actually true then it is partly equivalent to a female circumcision because even after the procedure a woman can still experience an internal orgasm.
> 
> ...


The intentions were the same. Religious groups did to try to reduce male pleasure. They didn't have the medical technology to check the severity differences, and how to reduce pleasure the best way they can, they mostly did it on intent.

It just turned out that male circumcision may not be as bad and severe as FGM (though FGM severity can vary). It could have been the other way around and Male Circumcision was worse then FGM. Without technology to check back then, for both men and women the intent was to reduce pleasure and they did it the best way they knew. And intent is the thing that matters most.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

Wow, I am so happy to see this thread here!

I never "liked" the fact that I was circumcised, but I believed all the other bullshit most Americans do about it. When I first found out I was circumcised, my mother told me it was healthier, looked better, and that it was a commandment from God (this was when I was a little kid, back then I was a very religious Christian). While I didn't like the fact that I was circumcised, I figured I really didn't want to go to hell, and so I was ok with it, blinded by lies. I can now say that I am ashamed that I ever thought this was an acceptable procedure to perform on a baby boy!

A little over four years ago, a situation came up that prompted me to re-think circumcision. When I have a son in the future, would I have him circumcised? I always felt kinda violated that part of my body, part of my penis no less, was cut off without my consent, but once again perhaps there are benefits? So I figured I owed it to my future son(s) to do a little research on the topic, and I'm very glad I did. As the video in OP's post explains, the "health benefits" of circumcision are at best over-exaggerated, and that's not how medicine is supposed to be practiced anyway. We don't cut perfectly healthy body tissue off just to avoid a future risk of infection. Obviously we do sometimes cut out certain things, tonsils, appendixes, etc. but only after they've been shown to be problematic. There's nothing inherently wrong about having a foreskin! As far as the religious argument goes, in the New Testament it's said that Christians should not be circumcised. As Eric Clopper states in his video, circumcision was a blood sacrifice for the Jews. Christians believe that Jesus died to save us from our sins, for Christians continuing to circumcise our newborn would be rejecting Christ's salvation. It's a common misconception among American Christians that we're supposed to be circumcised.

But more importantly, fuck the religious argument altogether. Here in America anyway, we're supposed to have "Freedom of Religion." By permanently cutting off part of my dick "in the name of god", my parents robbed me of my own freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, Human Rights should always triumph over religious ones. If you want to get yourself circumcised feel free, but no child should have their body permanently altered against their will. Religions that require circumcision or any other body modifications, especially for children, are barbaric.

And then I learned all of the benefits that a foreskin provides, and I became FURIOUS that I was robbed of it! Now, initially, I didn't really blame my parents. I was born in the late 80s, well before most people had internet in their homes. For that matter, a lot of people in my town didn't even own a computer back then. Now most people have some sort of smartphone, and most questions can be answered with a simple Google search. I couldn't blame my parents when they didn't have access to that sort of technology back then, and instead I blamed the doctors for failing to truthfully tell all the pros and cons of circumcision. So I never confronted them about it.

But I did want to help bring this atrocity to an end, so I became an intactivist. I tried to spread the word about the harms of circumcision. I shared intactivist memes on Facebook, I started "carding", leaving cards around that described the harms and had links with more information. I even got to protest with Brother K and the Bloodstained Men in Washington DC once. I'm not as active now as I once was though.

I'm not friends with my mom on Facebook, but I am friends with a bunch of people from my church, and word travels fast in a small town. When my Mom found out about everything I was posting, she was LIVID. She called me on the phone, cursed me out, told me that was her and my father's decision and that she would still make the same decision today. We went for a couple years with every phone call ending in cursing, yelling, and arguments. Now I've disowned my parents, we don't talk anymore. This pretty much caused a ripple effect, and I no longer have any real contact in my side of the family.

*TL;DR: *Intactivist here that agrees with everything in the video OP posted. Disowned parents after numerous large arguments regarding circumcision.

I'm happy to see this thread here because even though GBATemp has absolutely nothing to do with circumcision, it shows that the word is spreading. And I can see from various other posts that I am far from the only person at GBATemp that believes circumcision is a human rights violation.

Feel free to message me with any questions, either via PM or here in this thread.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> Wow, I am so happy to see this thread here!
> 
> I never "liked" the fact that I was circumcised, but I believed all the other bullshit most Americans do about it. When I first found out I was circumcised, my mother told me it was healthier, looked better, and that it was a commandment from God (this was when I was a little kid, back then I was a very religious Christian). While I didn't like the fact that I was circumcised, I figured I really didn't want to go to hell, and so I was ok with it, blinded by lies. I can now say that I am ashamed that I ever thought this was an acceptable procedure to perform on a baby boy!
> 
> ...


Good post. Though, I'm really sad to hear that this has caused you so much pain and has created a rift between you and your parents, it's not fair at all for you or them that this situation has been foisted upon you by years of misinformation. I hope that you're able to repair that relationship in the future.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

Holy Shit Harvard Fired Eric Clopper (the guy in the video) after he did the show


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> Good post. Though, I'm really sad to hear that this has caused you so much pain and has created a rift between you and your parents, it's not fair at all for you or them that this situation has been foisted upon you by years of misinformation. I hope that you're able to repair that relationship in the future.



It's unfortunate. I was willing to forgive them at first, but my mother refuses to listen to reason and is adamant that she did nothing wrong. Not only that, but she actually went as far as to belittle me for my feelings, saying crap like "Do you want me to go back to the doctor? Maybe they still have a piece of it left that they can glue on." Couple this with her refusal to acknowledge my stepson as her grandson, disagreements between her and my wife... yeah, it just got to the point that it was more hurtful to try and maintain a relationship with my mother than it was worth.

She actually started an argument with a huge number of intactivists on Facebook after I went and protested in D.C. Here's a link if anyone is interested:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=454635101360316&set=a.105162889640874.9577.100004414898074


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but these sources are exactly the things rebuted in the original video.
> 
> To be fair, @invaderyoyo wasn't ENTIRELY correct in that there are "no pros but a bunch of cons". Hygiene and medical prevention are certainly pros...if they're correct. The problem is that the studies you're linking to are, unfortunately, more a smoke screen than actual studies.
> 
> ...


Because I’ll trust the guy on YouTube over medical journals 

The video feels like that assembly in high school where they tell you sex is bad.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

xXDungeon_CrawlerXx said:


> I'm glad I'm not circumcized.


It's better to say "I'm glad my penis is 100 percent." or "My penis is intact."
or "My penis is not mutilated."


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm confused. Thought this was only the jewish and muslim way of life. And maybe african.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

ItsMetaKnight said:


> I'm confused. Thought this was only the jewish and muslim way of life. And maybe african.


You didn't watch the video.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



brickmii82 said:


> Because I’ll trust the guy on YouTube over medical journals
> 
> The video feels like that assembly in high school where they tell you sex is bad.


your stance is understandable given the fact that it's hard to come to terms with the fact that you were sexually assaulted in the worst way as a baby. So it's way easier to dismiss it so you can just go on with your life not thinking about it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


you can make the same moronic argument for "female circumcision"


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> you can make the same moronic argument for "female circumcision"


AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US.  Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic.  People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


Doesn't help that some are basically saying you are in denial, if you disagree, or using unequal comparisons. Not that I agree with this argument either way, but still.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Because I’ll trust the guy on YouTube over medical journals
> 
> The video feels like that assembly in high school where they tell you sex is bad.


This article you linked
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons#1

is exactly what the guy talked about in the video. For the scientific illiterate population that don't know how to interpret data is exactly why they think the 50-60% number is good. But they came to the 60% number by using relative risk reduction. Actual HIV risk percentages are 2.5% for intact men, and 1.2% for circumcised men. A 1.3% difference, very little benefit for circumcision. They came to the 60% by using this math formula *2.5%-1.2%/2.5% *which gives you about 60%, actual number is 0.52% if you do the math on a calculator, which is between 50-60%. So basically 1.2% is about 60% less than 2.5%.

U.S. has one of the highest rates of circumcised males yet they have one of the highest rates of HIV. Circumcision does little to deter from getting HIV.                                                                                                                      
And you can reduce HIV by using condoms, so no need to circumcise. So circumcising to reduce HIV should not be included as a plus because there are better ways to do it.


----------



## THEELEMENTKH (Jul 30, 2018)

ThoD said:


> (unless in EXTREMELY serious cases of phimosis)


Thanks for making me be even more worried about my problem than I was


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US.  Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic.  People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.


What's moronic is you assumption that infants  are not victims when they're getting their genitals mutilated without choice. I'm sorry it happened to you, but just because you're ok with it doesn't mean it's ok to do it to others. I'm willing to bet the all the circumcised males posting on this thread didn't watch the entire video. This is is barbaric and shouldn't exist in the 21st century period.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.


Even if it was an option, there'd be no real motivation to reattach some foreskin.  If a guy is going to get surgery on his penis as an adult, it's either to enlarge it or remove it as part of transitioning to a woman.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.


There is actually something called Foreskin regeneration. The point of it is to stretch the skin so it does some mitosis or whatever.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 30, 2018)

VinLark said:


> There is actually something called Foreskin regeneration. The point of it is to stretch the skin so it does some mitosis or whatever.


I saw that on penn and tellers. It's not foreskin. It's an approximation of it.


----------



## pressatoattack (Jul 30, 2018)

Yes I am American, yes I had the tip snipped.  No I don't care.


----------



## dimmidice (Jul 30, 2018)

pressatoattack said:


> Yes I am American, yes I had the tip snipped.  No I don't care.


And you felt is so important to tell us you dont care you made an account just for it?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


I think the only thing that would create annoyance (not rage really, I couldn't care less about other people and their ways lately) is when people justify male circumcision on "scientifically proven benefits" that are fake.
It is weird, it is like they try to find a high moral ground or something by saying "no, it's due to science".
If people just stated it is because of tradition, or looks (whatever), or in order to avoid discrimination (that is sick, but I think @x65943's point is valid), well, that sounds honest and shouldn't be a problem, but why trying to seek a fake high moral ground? That is something between nauseating and cringeworthy.

IMHO, this is not much different than opening earring holes in babies' earlobes. With the same "benefits" and "disadvantages". It is not that important, as long as people know that the real reasons for it is personal preference/choice and not due to some fake health advantage.


----------



## pressatoattack (Jul 30, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> And you felt is so important to tell us you dont care you made an account just for it?


Well, yes of course. Because I'm an American, so EVERYONE needs to hear my opinion


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

pressatoattack said:


> Well, yes of course. Because I'm an American, so EVERYONE needs to hear my opinion


lol


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage.  People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised?  I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.


Cons of being circumcised? How about the risk of death, over 100 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision. Some babies have contracted HIV or herpes from a mohel during brit milah. Lots of baby boys have other circumcision complications, like accidentally cutting the entire head of the penis off, or cutting too much skin off or cutting it unevenly.

Aside from that, circumcising an infant inflicts trauma and causes brain damage.

There have been multiple cases of people who got circumcised later in life as an adult and later said they regret it, and that it does decrease sensitivity. Of course, not many adults voluntarily go for circumcision, so there's really not enough for a scientific study. Also, from what I've heard, at first when they get circumcised they actually do have higher sensitivity because their glans, which is supposed to be an internal organ, is exposed. But a few years later after it's dried up and keratinized it ends up with much less sensitivity than before.

You also lose the foreskin's gliding action and lubricating functionality.



Xzi said:


> AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US.  Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic.  People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.


Female circumcision wasn't outlawed in the US until 1996, and there are still occasionally people that get their baby girls circumcised regardless (obviously in secret, not at a hospital). You may be surprised that some people are using the fact that boy circumcision is legal to argue that female circumcision should be legal too.

There are different methods of female circumcision, most of which are less traumatic than our current most popular form of male circumcision. Some forms of female circumcision are comparable to a pin prick, just enough for a few drops of blood.

But it's not a matter of which one is worse than the other. As far as I'm concerned they're both human rights violations and both of them should be illegal.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> Cons of being circumcised? How about the risk of death, over 100 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision. Some babies have contracted HIV or herpes from a mohel during brit milah. Lots of baby boys have other circumcision complications, like accidentally cutting the entire head of the penis off, or cutting too much skin off or cutting it unevenly.
> 
> Aside from that, circumcising an infant inflicts trauma and causes brain damage.


Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation.  Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Jul 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> You didn't watch the video.


That is very correct.  I couldn’t care less about this topic. And I’m not American.
I only posted because it’s laughable to see stuff like this on what used to be an underground scene forum.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation.  Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.


 fucking ironic since you're belittling male genital mutilation.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

Quibbling over terms is silly. It doesn't change what's happening and is only going to derail the thread. It can both easily fit the definition of mutilation without diminishing other forms of mutilation and be described as circumcision without any loss of understanding as to what the procedure involves.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation.  Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.


Now your doing selective reading using a ridiculous point to try to get the upper hand in the argument. 

Whether the point you call it mutilation or not, he said both FGM and Male Circumcision are human rights violations and should be outlawed no matter severity. Even if someone thinks it isn't on par with FGM he still believes its mutilation regardless. There are good points why we shouldn't circumcise and your ignoring all those points just because he said the word "mutilation" which you don't agree with on. This is a logical fallacy to dismiss all else he said based on this and your not thinking very rational about this.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> Quibbling over terms is silly. It doesn't change _*what's happening*_ and is only going to derail the thread. It can both easily fit the definition of mutilation without diminishing other forms of mutilation and be described as circumcision without any loss of understanding as to what the procedure involves.


It's not "what's happening" but "what has been happening for millennia" (or centuries if you only consider America).
I don't see why everybody takes this so to heart.
It is an American problem (if it is even a problem to begin with) and nothing important for others to care about IMHO, it's not like they will go circumcising -your- children, I mean they won't even make you circumcise your children if you happen to be American.
Also, don't worry, Americans won't become extinct (at least not due to male circumcision), the birth rate is big enough and the couple in a million of badly cut to the point of uselessness penises won't make the country disappear.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> You didn't watch the video.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There’s nothing to come to terms with. People did what they thought was right and I don’t remember any of it. Imo most of this is manufactured outrage.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation.  Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.


Bullshit. Where do you see a hyperbole in my post?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



brickmii82 said:


> There’s nothing to come to terms with. People did what they thought was right and I don’t remember any of it. Imo most of this is manufactured outrage.



Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it's ok. If you were raped as a baby, I doubt you would just shrug it off as "I don't remember any of it".


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Now your doing selective reading using a ridiculous point to try to get the upper hand in the argument.
> 
> Whether the point you call it mutilation or not, he said both FGM and Male Circumcision are human rights violations and should be outlawed no matter severity. Even if someone thinks it isn't on par with FGM he still believes its mutilation regardless. There are good points why we shouldn't circumcise and your ignoring all those points just because he said the word "mutilation" which you don't agree with on. This is a logical fallacy to dismiss all else he said based on this and your not thinking very rational about this.


Claims made with no evidence are just as easily dismissed with no evidence.  For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that circumcision can decrease sensitivity, even despite no empirical evidence of that either, but we're getting to the point of absurdity when people are claiming brain damage, AIDS, and death as consequences of circumcision.  Unless you're getting your baby circumcised in a back alley by Roy Moore, none of this is even remotely possible.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it's ok. If you were raped as a baby, I doubt you would just shrug it off as "I don't remember any of it".


Sure you won't either remember if you were ran over by a truck that you miraculously survived albeit it left you paraplegic.
And I am saying this because a cirumcision, being raped and being ran over by a truck are totally the same thing or in the same level! /s


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> It's not "what's happening" but "what has been happening for millennia" (or centuries if you only consider America).
> I don't see why everybody takes this so to heart.
> It is an American problem (if it is even a problem to begin with) and nothing important for others to care about IMHO, it's not like they will go circumcising -your- children, I mean they won't even make you circumcise your children if you happen to be American.
> Also, don't worry, Americans won't become extinct (at least not due to male circumcision), the birth rate is big enough and the couple in a million of badly cut to the point of uselessness penises won't make the country disappear.


With respect, regardless of if you understand it or not, people are going to care and they are going to want to discuss it and act for or against it as is their want. The length of time it has been happening is an irrelevancy.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> With respect, regardless of if you understand it or not, people are going to care and they are going to want to discuss it and act for or against it as is their want. The length of time it has been happening is an irrelevancy.


It is totally relevant when part of the narrative is to "casually" let it slide as if it were some kind of "emergency" happening "right now".
That said, I also find it amusing how much emotion people put into it when they discuss it with more passion than motive, regardless they not having a clue what they are talking about.
I guess it would be worthy of getting some pop-corn, but to be honest the topic is so dull and the discussion so lacking that it would be more entertaining to watch cars passing by through the window.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Claims made with no evidence are just as easily dismissed with no evidence.  For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that circumcision can decrease sensitivity, even despite no empirical evidence of that either, but we're getting to the point of absurdity when people are claiming brain damage, AIDS, and death as consequences of circumcision.  Unless you're getting your baby circumcised in a back alley by Roy Moore, none of this is even remotely possible.


Only in the U.S. and Israel they think it's good to cut off foreskin. If there were no negative consequences or if it provides these huge health benefits as some claim then why isn't this practiced all around the world? Something this beneficial would have been adopted by everyone one right, especially all the industrialized nations.

The Dutch thinks its a human rights violation. Germany says there is no medical reason for cutting it off. Australia and New Zealand criticize the U.S. findings as incompetent and an embarrassment to the AAP. Big claims by two countries practically making fun of the U.S.

And pretty much every other country in the world say that the AAP findings which are the articles you constantly site and talk about used flawed methodology and is scientific nonsense. Why does practically every other country in the world see it as a human rights violation but U.S. doesn't. Is the whole world wrong and U.S. is right?

And there is evidence that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Claims made with no evidence are just as easily dismissed with no evidence.  For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that circumcision can decrease sensitivity, even despite no empirical evidence of that either, but we're getting to the point of absurdity when people are claiming brain damage, AIDS, and death as consequences of circumcision.  Unless you're getting your baby circumcised in a back alley by Roy Moore, none of this is even remotely possible.



Any of these can be verified with a simple Google search.

Herpes Contracted During Brit Milah:
June 2012 - http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/...abies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/
June 2016 - https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Two-recent-cases-herpes-in-babies-following-Brit-Milah-455759

Brain Damage:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
http://circumcision.org/circumcision-permanently-alters-the-brain/

Unfortunately, most deaths from circumcision are recorded as due to stroke or excessive bleeding rather than circumcision, so it's hard to quantify that number. But they do happen all the time, even from circumcisions done in hospitals. A 2010 study by Dan Bollinger is commonly quoted, that estimates an average of 117 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> It is totally relevant when part of the narrative is to "casually" let it slide as if it were some kind of "emergency" happening "right now".
> That said, I also find it amusing how much emotion people put into it when they discuss it with more passion than motive, regardless they not having a clue what they are talking about.
> I guess it would be worthy of getting some pop-corn, but to be honest the topic is so dull and the discussion so lacking that it would be more entertaining to watch cars passing by through the window.


Is it not something that is happening right now? Why should the practice's longevity have any bearing on how people living now view it? All societies change in this manner. Old traditions are discarded when they become unpalatable to the people, but in order for that to occur people have to raise their voices against it.
As far as being amused by people not knowing what they're talking about goes, I guess I can agree to an extent? But that's perfectly normal. Being passionate about something, making mistakes and learning from them is just another part of growth.
Having nothing to talk about because we should only let the experts speak would make for a very boring social life.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> Is it not something that is happening right now? Why should the practice's longevity have any bearing on how people living now view it? All societies change in this manner. Old traditions are discarded when they become unpalatable to the people, but in order for that to occur people have to raise their voices against it.
> As far as being amused by people not knowing what they're talking about goes, I guess I can agree to an extent? But that's perfectly normal. Being passionate about something, making mistakes and learning from them is just another part of growth.
> Having nothing to talk about because we should only let the experts speak would make for a very boring social life.


Well, sure it could be that I don't share links with America, but I don't get passionate about this topic really.
I myself would never get a circumcision or circumcise my kids, but I consider this to be free choice.
Again, I think there are things that parents do to their kids that are way worse for their health (like feeding them soda as if it were water) and people don't bat an eye... Why circumcision then?


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, sure it could be that I don't share links with America, but I don't get passionate about this topic really.
> I myself would never get a circumcision or circumcise my kids, but I consider this to be free choice.
> Again, I think there are things that parents do to their kids that are way worse for their health (like feeding them soda as if it were water) and people don't bat an eye... Why circumcision then?


I could just as easily ask why not circumcision? As long as they do not contradict, one view does not preclude the other. If someone who feels strongly about soda and its ill effects on health wants to act against it they can and have raised the issue. It is for this very reason that the United Kingdom now has additional taxes on soda.


----------



## JellyPerson (Jul 30, 2018)

I am American and I have a clean uncircumsized cock. Thank you for asking.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Again, I think there are things that parents do to their kids that are way worse for their health (like feeding them soda as if it were water) and people don't bat an eye... Why circumcision then?



Because circumcision permanently amputates part of their body, and in America is usually done when the child is too young to consent or defend himself.

I consider routine infant circumcision to be nothing less than sexual assault, and should be illegal. Nobody would "look the other way" and continue to allow it to happen if you were to sexually assault a baby, the same should happen for circumcision.

What makes my blood boil is these parents that continue to say "my child, my choice." No, it's not. It's HIS penis, HIS choice!


----------



## Eddypikachu (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, sure it could be that I don't share links with America, but I don't get passionate about this topic really.
> I myself would never get a circumcision or circumcise my kids, but I consider this to be free choice.
> Again, I think there are things that parents do to their kids that are way worse for their health (like feeding them soda as if it were water) and people don't bat an eye... Why circumcision then?


The fight against obesity by getting kids and adults to eat healthier in america is a thing thats been going on for years
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3440873
https://www.aafp.org/news/obesity/20100517fed-initiatives.html
You probably wouldnt have know since youre not living in America, but this issue has already been raised a long time ago and there have been great efforts in improving the eating habits of children and adults in America like making school lunches healthier, giving them knowledge about healthy eating habits, and doing physical activity for at least 30 minutes a day.
And inregard to circumcision it is very much possible to be campaigning for two or more things at the same time.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, sure it could be that I don't share links with America, but I don't get passionate about this topic really.
> I myself would never get a circumcision or circumcise my kids, but I consider this to be free choice.
> Again, I think there are things that parents do to their kids that are way worse for their health (like feeding them soda as if it were water) and people don't bat an eye... Why circumcision then?


So should they not talk about circumcision if they don't talk about obesity?

So if they don't care about one issue then they can't care about other issues? So should people not fight for Women's rights if they don't fight for Trans rights? Or what about any other type of rights. Theres always going to be something someone is not fighting for, so should people then never fight about anything then. Its a never ending loop. Even if they fought for one thing and not the other, the world would be better off then doing nothing at all.

What your tying to do is reduce the significance of circumcision because you think something else is worse out there that you think people aren't talking about much. Even if circumcision isn't worse than obesity, its still better off people talk about it then saying nothing at all regardless of if they care about other issues. And who's to say we don't care about obesity?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 30, 2018)

@Eddypikachu 
It doesn't show up /s (hides behind some wall before rocks start raining due to the bad fat shaming joke)

I mean, good to see America is taking good steps to improve the health of their citizens.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> What your tying to do is reduce the significance of circumcision because you think something else is worse out there that you think people aren't talking about much. Even if circumcision isn't worse than obesity, its still better off people talk about it then saying nothing at all regardless of if they care about other issues. And who's to say we don't care about obesity?


Well, don't accuse me of trying to reduce its significance in some evil way. (thus I am kind of reducing it nonetheless, but it was not the plan)
I was just stating the I don't have any strong emotions in this topic, I don't find it as awful as many of you I guess.
Though I agree that I was being a bit closed minded regarding how strong other people feel about it. (the reason I liked both yours and FGFLann's comment, I agree with them)


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jul 30, 2018)

The video didn't even mention the botched circumcisions that also happen. like the documented case where the babys' penis was mutilated beyond repair and they decided to turn him into a transgender woman. Not surprisingly the boy committed suicide. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> Any of these can be verified with a simple Google search.
> 
> Herpes Contracted During Brit Milah:
> June 2012 - http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/...abies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/
> ...


Well, you provided sources for everything except the HIV thing and I commend you for that.  However, that's an extremely low number of cases for herpes, isolated to specific areas.  So it's basically as I said: using any certified physician all but eliminates the risk of this type of thing.  As to the brain damage thing, it still seems a bit sensationalist, but at least the one opinion paper you linked seems to use legit references instead of just trying to sell a book.



RHOPKINS13 said:


> Because circumcision permanently amputates part of their body, and in America is usually done when the child is too young to consent or defend himself.
> 
> I consider routine infant circumcision to be nothing less than sexual assault, and should be illegal. Nobody would "look the other way" and continue to allow it to happen if you were to sexually assault a baby, the same should happen for circumcision.
> 
> What makes my blood boil is these parents that continue to say "my child, my choice." No, it's not. It's HIS penis, HIS choice!


Up to age 18 or the point of emancipation, a person doesn't really get to make many decisions for themselves.  In America at least, they don't have as many rights, either.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm actually pretty surprised to see so many defending the practice. A part of the penis is permanently removed. A part with a function and nerves. This will affect the person for their entire life.

It's not like an ear piercing where it's completely cosmetic without any real drawbacks. It just sounds, to me, like such a crazy thing to defend.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Jul 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, you provided sources for everything except the HIV thing and I commend you for that.  However, that's an extremely low number of cases for herpes, isolated to specific areas.  So it's basically as I said: using any certified physician all but eliminates the risk of this type of thing.  As to the brain damage thing, it still seems a bit sensationalist, but at least the one opinion paper you linked seems to use legit references instead of just trying to sell a book.



My previous post only mentioned getting HIV and Herpes from the Jewish tradition of Brit Milah, I haven't heard of it happening from other instances and admittedly I can't seem to find any sources regarding HIV currently, so perhaps I am wrong about that.

As far as whether or not sensitivity is affected, I think it's pretty obvious that it's somehow affected in one way or another. I implore you to search google images. Compare the glans of a circumcised penis with the glans of an uncut one, you'll notice that the intact one looks smooth and glossy compared to the dried out penis of a circumcised man.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Up to age 18 or the point of emancipation, a person doesn't really get to make many decisions for themselves.  In America at least, they don't have as many rights, either.



Genital Autonomy should be recognized as a universal human right for all, regardless of gender, religion, or place of origin.

Circumcision is one of very few forms of child abuse that CPS won't take your kids away for.


----------



## JellyPerson (Jul 30, 2018)

Circumcized cocks look gross. They are honestly quite disgusting. My father told me he considered circumsizing me when I was an infant, but he decided not to. Thanks, dad.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Jul 30, 2018)

R.I.P. my dick.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> Genital Autonomy should be recognized as a universal human right for all, regardless of gender, religion, or place of origin.


I don't have an issue with that stance.  It's just kind of in a limbo between a political thing, a cultural thing, and a religious thing, so I'm uncertain on how you'd even start the push for that.  It's also kinda low on the list of problems in the US all things considered, even despite the passion it might inspire from some people.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 31, 2018)

I finished the video.
That was the most intense video I have ever seen. That guy was screaming loud.


----------



## JellyPerson (Jul 31, 2018)

Honestly, if a parent will circumcise their child, the child can't really go against it at that age. Its a little ridiculous to think about.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 31, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Up to age 18 or the point of emancipation, a person doesn't really get to make many decisions for themselves.  In America at least, they don't have as many rights, either.


Even if they don't have many rights till 18 many countries should have the right to body integrity. Imagine using that argument on FGM. Females have no rights till 18 so lets slice up their body parts. People would think your crazy.

I've finished the video now and FGM and Male Circumcision are identical. They both were intended to mark people like cattle, both have origins in a blood sacrifice ritual, both used to reduce sexual pleasure. And if you read this paper by the Dutch http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/KNMG-policy.pdf
they found no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in prevention and hygiene.

They also list negatives of circumcision that are common complication like bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks.

They are planning to ban circumcision in many countries. But there are resistance from Jewish and Islamic groups. They complain that they are putting Anti Semitic and Anti Islam policies if they prevent them from performing the most essential part of their religion, and they should have the right to Religious Freedom. Human rights groups are fighting against this by saying the Right to Body Integrity trumps the Right to Religious Freedom. We wouldn't allow them to use that argument for FGM so why let them use it for Male Circumcision.

If we give them the Right to Religious Freedom to circumcise their child, we are taking away from the child's right to religious freedom by leaving a permanent scar/marking on their body. Many children don't follow their parents beliefs so its not not right to leave a marking of a religious cult they may not want to be a part of when they grow up. So they are violating 2 human rights. The right to a child's religious freedom and their right to body integrity.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 31, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Because I’ll trust the guy on YouTube over medical journals
> 
> The video feels like that assembly in high school where they tell you sex is bad.


The guy is a Harvard system administrator, informing a live audience with medical journals, motivations, findings, context and evidence for well over an hour. I'll give that a bit more credibility than some years old hyperlinks that are from equally reputable medical journals.

Oh, but feel free to disagree. By the way...would you mind replying to my notion that Europe has more uncircumcised males yet les HIV infections? Heck...if I didn't care about the difference between causation and correlation, I'd say that circumcisions as a baby IMPROVES your chances of HIV**. 



**if you want, I'll even "prove" it by comparing a uncircumcised group of safe sex practitioners with a bunch of circumcised guys who can't tell a condom from a water balloon.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 31, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> The guy is a Harvard system administrator, informing a live audience with medical journals, motivations, findings, context and evidence for well over an hour. I'll give that a bit more credibility than some years old hyperlinks that are from equally reputable medical journals.
> 
> Oh, but feel free to disagree. By the way...would you mind replying to my notion that Europe has more uncircumcised males yet les HIV infections? Heck...if I didn't care about the difference between causation and correlation, I'd say that circumcisions as a baby IMPROVES your chances of HIV**.
> 
> ...


He use to work for Harvard but they fired him over this talk. They called him an Anti Semite which is funny since he's a Jew. And he's a Physicist.
I don't trust medical journals about circumcision from the U.S. since many of them are written by Jews with a huge religious bias. And I look to other countries scientific findings instead. They don't want to put the negatives since people will think their religious practices are barbaric. And their penis cutting and baby penis sucking with their mouths as crazy.

They are convinced by their delusional religion that they are bad people if they don't slice up their child's dick. Sounds very similar to Islamic countries that think they need to cut the females privates. And over there they try to down play the effects of FGM by saying its for health reason, its not that big of a deal, and think people are over reacting. Very similar thinking with Middle East and the U.S. The world thinks Middle East are barbarians for FGM. And guess what. The world thinks the U.S. are barbarians for Male Circumcision. We are alike in this practice.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 31, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> The guy is a Harvard system administrator, informing a live audience with medical journals, motivations, findings, context and evidence for well over an hour. I'll give that a bit more credibility than some years old hyperlinks that are from equally reputable medical journals.
> 
> Oh, but feel free to disagree. By the way...would you mind replying to my notion that Europe has more uncircumcised males yet les HIV infections? Heck...if I didn't care about the difference between causation and correlation, I'd say that circumcisions as a baby IMPROVES your chances of HIV**.
> 
> ...


He's not a doctor. Just on that fact alone, nope. He's just challenging a status quo, due to an anti-religious bias. But go ahead and drink the new kool aid, I don't care. As far as HIV rates, the US has a significantly higher rate of illicit drug use, and ingestion through dirty needles and syringes are common. Europe has way better drug policy.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 31, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> He's not a doctor. Just on that fact alone, nope. He's just challenging a status quo, due to an anti-religious bias. But go ahead and drink the new kool aid, I don't care. As far as HIV rates, the US has a significantly higher rate of illicit drug use, and ingestion through dirty needles and syringes are common. Europe has way better drug policy.


Logical Fallacy! Dismissing his claims simply by saying he isn't a Doctor even though he provided evidence. He did quote actual Doctors. So if your trying to dismiss his claims then your actually trying to dismiss the Doctors he cited. And using your own logic why should they take your criticisms of Doctors when you yourself are not one.

Australia, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, German are trying to limit circumcision.
Germany also ruled that parents can be brought to court for circumcising their child even for religious reasons.
But of course religious groups fought against this. If countries are trying to ban and even charge parents for circumcision it seems like its no small issue.

Even the American AAP says that while there might be potential benefits data is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
So why circumcise kids and violate their human rights when even America does not recommend routine circumcision.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 31, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Logical Fallacy! Dismissing his claims simply by saying he isn't a Doctor even though he provided evidence. He did quote actual Doctors. So if your trying to dismiss his claims then your actually trying to dismiss the Doctors he cited. And using your own logic what right do you have to question those Doctors if you yourself are not one.
> 
> Australia, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, German are trying to limit circumcision.
> Germany also ruled that parents can be brought to court for circumcising their child even for religious reasons.
> ...


He cherry picked his evidence to support his claims. Let's lay it out on the table for it to be as plain to see as an apple on a tree on a sunny day. If circumcision wasn't a Jewish tradition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's anti-religion hid behind a claim of scientific basis. Here's the problem, science isn't biased. Clopper is, hence the cherry picking. As far as my inclusion into my logic, where did I make a claim about medicinal knowledge? He's the one making a claim and staking his territory. 

Countries are also attempting to ban violent video games. Is that a basis to do so?

Afaik, nothing has changed and many doctors still do recommend circumcision. Well, aside from this guy trying to "destroy the covenant." Again, drink the new kool aid all you want, idc. This is all manufactured outrage imo. To each their own though. If you believe it, cool. Don't do circumcision. If you don't, cool. Do it, idc. I'll personally continue to do whatever my doctor(s) recommend.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 1, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> He cherry picked his evidence to support his claims. Let's lay it out on the table for it to be as plain to see as an apple on a tree on a sunny day. If circumcision wasn't a Jewish tradition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's anti-religion hid behind a claim of scientific basis. Here's the problem, science isn't biased. Clopper is, hence the cherry picking. As far as my inclusion into my logic, where did I make a claim about medicinal knowledge? He's the one making a claim and staking his territory.
> 
> Countries are also attempting to ban violent video games. Is that a basis to do so?
> 
> Afaik, nothing has changed and many doctors still do recommend circumcision. Well, aside from this guy trying to "destroy the covenant." Again, drink the new kool aid all you want, idc. This is all manufactured outrage imo. To each their own though. If you believe it, cool. Don't do circumcision. If you don't, cool. Do it, idc. I'll personally continue to do whatever my doctor(s) recommend.


I completely agree with the last part, when it's with regard to yourself. The problem is the genital mutilation is done to infants who can't stand up for themselves.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 1, 2018)

You all spend too much time thinking about child penis....


----------



## wormdood (Aug 1, 2018)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> You all spend too much time thinking about child penis....


one of which grew to be my penis so . . . ?


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 1, 2018)

A keratinized penis glans says all you need to know about male genital mutilation.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 1, 2018)

wormdood said:


> one of which grew to be my penis so . . . ?



It's a bit unhealthy to obsess to much over it  lol


----------



## wormdood (Aug 1, 2018)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> It's a bit unhealthy to obsess to much over it  lol


im not i just shared my opinion on the topic . . . i dont preach.  if others are silly enough to do this then it should be their own penises not the penises of their kids is my opinion (its not the penis but the lack of decency/respect/rights for our own kin that bothers me)


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 1, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> He's not a doctor. Just on that fact alone, nope. He's just challenging a status quo, due to an anti-religious bias. But go ahead and drink the new kool aid, I don't care. As far as HIV rates, the US has a significantly higher rate of illicit drug use, and ingestion through dirty needles and syringes are common. Europe has way better drug policy.


Okay...I think this calls for a "let's agree to disagree". The HIV infection rate can certainly be caused by other means, and credibility is something up to par with belief, so this won't work. So...

Agree to disagree?


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 2, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> Tldr
> 
> You will be PISSED OFF... Everything we were ever taught about circumcision was a complete lie. None of it is true. It doesn't help prevent diseases,* it isn't unhygienic*. If you're uncut (NORMAL) dick is dirty then fucking clean it like you're supposed to. It is a religious practice being forced on us all...
> 
> Spread this shit. But definitely watch that video. Do not take my word for it. Watch the video and see for yourself. He goes into the entire history of circumcision



No, but it does help avoid the disgusting build up of smegma, no thank you lol.


----------



## seren3 (Aug 2, 2018)

The biggest problem with circumcision is not just the sensitivity. A not insignificant amount of babies die as a result of poorly done circumcisions (229 deaths per year, 1.3% of all neonatal deaths in the US). Some circumcisions fail, and leave children with (more improperly) mutilated genitals. The baby also experiences an extremely traumatic shock from literally having part of their cock chopped off. This causes a massive brainwave spike in the parts of the brain that are related to pain and trauma. The baby is experiencing something fucked up, and that trauma has an impact on early life development, usually impacting the baby's first conceptions as to whether or not the world is a safe place to exist in. Receiving such a shock tends to slight them towards believing the world to be an unsafe, scary place with lots of painful things.

sources:
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> No, but it does help avoid the disgusting build up of smegma, no thank you lol.


I mean, if you never clean your penis, sure.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 2, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> I mean, if you never clean your penis, sure.



Well with an uncircumcised penis I've never once seen smegma, yet apparently it can quickly build up under the foreskin for those that aren't, even if you shower as often as every other day.  Just glad i don't have to deal with that nonsense at all lol.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> Well with an uncircumcised penis I've never once seen smegma, yet apparently it can quickly build up under the foreskin for those that aren't, even if you shower as often as every other day.  Just glad i don't have to deal with that nonsense at all lol.


Idk where you heard that, but if you bathe regularly you'll never have to worry about it.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> No, but it does help avoid the disgusting build up of smegma, no thank you lol.



Apparently you've never taken a shower.

Let's pull out our teeth to prevent the build up of plaque.
cut off our ears to prevent build up of ear wax.
cut off our noses to prevent boogers.
how about we kill ourselves to prevent any kind of natural body secretion from occurring...
/s


----------



## Raverrevolution (Aug 2, 2018)

Lol so last night I finally finished watching the entire video, yeah it's 2 hours long so it took me 2 days. 

I look back on the pro-circ comments in this thread in amazement, because Eric literally addresses everything to the finest degree.  You can tell that anyone who is for it didn't watch the video all the way through because that was so compelling of a speech that I know my mind would have been changed if I was on that side to begin with.  It's going to be such a tough battle to correct generations of thought on this stupid myth on mutilation.

To anyone who is for it, get your thought down to the very most basic thing ever, YOU ARE CUTTING PART OF THE PENIS OFF.  If the foreskin caused that much of a disadvantage the entire world would be doing it and men's dicks would have evolved to exclude it.


----------



## barronwaffles (Aug 2, 2018)

Is not washing your junk an American tradition or something?


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 2, 2018)

Raverrevolution said:


> Lol so last night I finally finished watching the entire video, yeah it's 2 hours long so it took me 2 days.
> 
> I look back on the pro-circ comments in this thread in amazement, because Eric literally addresses everything to the finest degree.  You can tell that anyone who is for it didn't watch the video all the way through because that was so compelling of a speech that I know my mind would have been changed if I was on that side to begin with.  It's going to be such a tough battle to correct generations of thought on this stupid myth on mutilation.
> 
> To anyone who is for it, get your thought down to the very most basic thing ever, YOU ARE CUTTING PART OF THE PENIS OFF.  If the foreskin caused that much of a disadvantage the entire world would be doing it and men's dicks would have evolved to exclude it.


you have to understand that it's hard to accept that something traumatic has happened to you and so it's much easier to just rationalize that it's ok. The truth is that there's nothing we can do for the people who have been circumcised. This battle is to save the children who are going to be exposed to this torture.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 4, 2018)

10/10, best thread ever


----------



## alexg1989 (Aug 7, 2018)

For those of you who for some reason still doubt that those with mutilated penis lose sensitivity, I've got a question. Honestly, think about it.

In america, I'm assuming most men are circumcized. So thatears you likely have seen circumcized men walking down the road and at random places.

Have you ever seen a man, as he's going about his business, suddenly recoil in pain and clutch his dick area?

Well, the reason you don't see that is because they've lost so much sensitivity to their penis, that they don't even feel pain when their exposed dick head rubs against the fabric of the clothing they're wearing. 

For me, as someone who has a normal penis that was never mutilated, if my foreskin retracts, or if I get a bit of a hardon, enough to retract the skin while I'm still wearing clothes, that fucking shit hurts like a motherfucker. I'm sure other normal dicked men would have similar pain.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 7, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> For those of you who for some reason still doubt that those with mutilated penis lose sensitivity, I've got a question. Honestly, think about it.
> 
> In america, I'm assuming most men are circumcized. So thatears you likely have seen circumcized men walking down the road and at random places.
> 
> ...


honestly the sensitivity issue is the least compelling reason against male genital mutilation. How about we strap these "doctors" to a chair and cut off parts of their skin without anesthesia? It doesn't get more barbaric or ridiculous than that.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Aug 7, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> honestly the sensitivity issue is the least compelling reason against male genital mutilation. How about we strap these "doctors" to a chair and cut off parts of their skin without anesthesia? It doesn't get more barbaric or ridiculous than that.



I for one find it REVOLTING that my parents were able to have me circumcised against my will as an infant, before I even had a chance of defending myself, and faced no repurcussions, yet if I showed up at their house with a handsaw in the middle of the night and force-fed them their own genitals I'd be headed to prison. That's fucked up!


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 7, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> I for one find it REVOLTING that my parents were able to have me circumcised against my will as an infant, before I even had a chance of defending myself, and faced no repurcussions, yet if I showed up at their house with a handsaw in the middle of the night and force-fed them their own genitals I'd be headed to prison. That's fucked up!


I'm fairly certain that circumcision doesn't entail feeding you your genitals. 

There's a lot of issues with circumcision as a whole but the people whose arguments boil down to "yeah well what if i cut their genitals off before them?" aren't helping the debate.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Aug 7, 2018)

No, it doesn't entail feeding you your own genitals, but you're missing my point. My parents had me circumcised (or, better yet, mutilated) as an infant when I couldn't defend myself, and I have zero legal recourse. They robbed me of part of my humanity, they permanently altered the look and function of my genitals, and I will never be able to experience sex the way nature intended it.

And any "fitting" form of revenge I can think of would land me in jail.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 7, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> No, it doesn't entail feeding you your own genitals, but you're missing my point. My parents had me circumcised (or, better yet, mutilated) as an infant when I couldn't defend myself, and I have zero legal recourse. They robbed me of part of my humanity, they permanently altered the look and function of my genitals, and I will never be able to experience sex the way nature intended it.
> 
> And any "fitting" form of revenge I can think of would land me in jail.


Probably because revenge in general typically lands you in jail. Maybe I'm in the minority here since I don't care about sex at all but I don't see this as that big of a deal.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 7, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Probably because revenge in general typically lands you in jail. Maybe I'm in the minority here since I don't care about sex at all but I don't see this as that big of a deal.


This is a huge deal.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 7, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> No, it doesn't entail feeding you your own genitals, but you're missing my point. My parents had me circumcised (or, better yet, mutilated) as an infant when I couldn't defend myself, and I have zero legal recourse. They robbed me of part of my humanity, they permanently altered the look and function of my genitals, and I will never be able to experience sex the way nature intended it.
> 
> And any "fitting" form of revenge I can think of would land me in jail.


the bigger blame falls on our society that normalizes this behavior. Like the video shows if your dad was mutilated then he thinks it's ok. Don't blame your parents so much they thought it was best because this is the lie that is being told.


----------



## Justinde75 (Aug 7, 2018)

Thats one hell of a title you got there


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Aug 8, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> the bigger blame falls on our society that normalizes this behavior. Like the video shows if your dad was mutilated then he thinks it's ok. Don't blame your parents so much they thought it was best because this is the lie that is being told.



If you look at my previous posts, I gave details about my circumcision argument with my parents.

https://gbatemp.net/posts/8182528/
https://gbatemp.net/posts/8182707/

Originally I was willing to forgive my parents, and instead focus my blame on society and the doctors that fail to accurately inform parents of the pros and cons of circumcision. But based mostly on my parents' responses when they found out I was against circumcision, I'm not able to forgive them.


----------



## tbb043 (Aug 8, 2018)

Enjoy your penis cancer, uncirced weirdos


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 8, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> If you look at my previous posts, I gave details about my circumcision argument with my parents.
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/posts/8182528/
> https://gbatemp.net/posts/8182707/
> ...


did you make them watch the video? sorry I dint' read all of it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tbb043 said:


> Enjoy your penis cancer, uncirced weirdos


I think part of your brain was circumcised as well.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Aug 8, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> did you make them watch the video? sorry I dint' read all of it.



We've been arguing about this for years. No, I can't "make" them do anything, but I seriously doubt it would change their minds if they did watch the video. 

If you take a gander here, you can see that my mom refuses to budge on the issue:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=454635101360316&set=a.105162889640874.9577.100004414898074

We don't speak anymore.


----------



## Viri (Aug 8, 2018)

I dunno why it makes me laugh seeing that a thread about cut v uncut dicks has 13 pages.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Aug 8, 2018)

Viri said:


> I dunno why it makes me laugh seeing that a thread about cut v uncut dicks has 13 pages.


To me it's not really about "cut vs intact", I don't think anybody here is really trying to argue that they have a "better" dick because of it. 

The real argument is whether parents should be allowed to make that decision in the absence of medical necessity, and I strongly believe the answer is NO.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 8, 2018)

RHOPKINS13 said:


> We've been arguing about this for years. No, I can't "make" them do anything, but I seriously doubt it would change their minds if they did watch the video.
> 
> If you take a gander here, you can see that my mom refuses to budge on the issue:
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=454635101360316&set=a.105162889640874.9577.100004414898074
> ...


wow. I'm sorry for you brother. Remember you're loved by our father in heaven.


----------

