By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bigjon said:
Jumpin said:

wCutting off a bit of your penis to show your devotion to God is really fucking weird if you think about it.
If you want me to worship a god, this is NOT my idea of a fun party!

Whoever came up with this is a sick freak! I’m looking at you pre-dynastic ancient Egypt priests!

Also, it’s incredibly unhealthy, as it can lead to impotence and lack of sensation during sex. If you ever listen to Jewish comedy, you get the picture: “I went from being too quick to lasting way too long” George Costanza.

Basically, without foreskin, men:
A) 90% of the pleasure sensation during sex is cut off with the nerve endings.
B) Lack control over cumming.
C) Women don’t like it as it doesn’t feel right, and can more easily damage them.

Honestly, I would recommend anyone who had this done to them as a baby to charge their parents with abuse. This is a disgusting and barbaric practice, and any parent that has this done to their own child needs mental therapy. They literally cut the a piece of their manhood away without consent.

It should not be associated with nazism to ban non-consensual genital mutilation, that is a fucking terrible argument. Additionally, this ISN’T akin to banning religious clothing, as religious clothing isn’t irreversible assault with lifelong sexual-health and psychological consequences.

Yes! I have strong feelings on this issue! My brothers across the world had their strong feelings cut off!

it is simply more sanitary. That is why it was originally done, the faiths adopted it as a practice (like not eating pork) for sanitary reasons. Until modern times when we understood how to cook pork it was quite deadly, same goes for the foreskin. The foreskin will capture more bacteria and removing it is prevents this.

You advocate destroying a person's future sex life via genital mutilation due to "less bacteria?" - on children who are far too young to give consent to such a horrific act?

On the contrary: - reports show that in the 1940s between 16 and 19 babies died each year due to infections relating to circumcisions within the UK, and over 100 infants in the US - but due to underreporting estimates in the US are over 220 each year; again, directly related to infection caused by circumcision. And you would have to imagine this number was substantially higher when sanitation was not taken as seriously. The history has nothing to do with "bacteria" as humanity wasn't aware of bacteria until quite recently; additionally, the medical rationale was not developed until after the practice became widespread in the English world, it's largely a form of apologetics to justify a barbaric and disgusting ritual.

Circumcision became widespread in the English world during a time when the climate of attitude toward sexual pleasure was negative, especially concerning masturbation. It's designed to repress sexual stimulation. It causes tremendous damage to the erogenous nervous tissue for several reasons: 1. keratinization of the glans/head, 2. the loss of important tissue, 3. the loss of thousands of sensory nerve endings, 4. Loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and 5. Loss of the gliding mechanism. Children who have had this inflicted upon them have had the opportunity to have a full sexual experience revoked from them when they reach adulthood.

If someone used that same argument on a baby girl, removing the labia and clitoris on baby girls for the reason of "less bacteria," - as someone who I assume is from the English world - you would consider them to be a loathsome excuse of a person; anyone who actually DID this, should be charged with sexual assault.


Anyway, we can't stay serious in this forum (isn't it against the rules?),



And YES, that is the guy who played President Kim in The Interview.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 28 February 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.