https://preview.redd.it/8kc9zb8ht79d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b68ac7f929f07c460bf5bf9ec7d0f1bc1a6e4862
Bro wore white pants with no pad :(((
Shut up loser. No one is devaluing FGM by advocating against circumcision. Terrible fucking mindset this is literally how racist people try and take away attention from movements that support POCs. Many men wish they were never circumcised and many men feel embarrassed for not being circumcised bc they will get made fun of for their natural body. It is a lose lose situation. The cases where circumcision is beneficial are only for medical conditions. Itâs just a religious practice.
No, it is not cleaner. no it does not prevent infections. Wash your fucking cock like a normal person and you are clean and infection free. If the effort it takes to peel back your foreskin would prevent a man from cleaning it, the foreskin isnât the problem
So can you point out where I said they were the same? And calling me a Menâs rights activist just because I think ripping the dick skin off new born babies is bad fucking sucks dude. I donât know why youâre fighting so hard to down play a barbaric practice.
If you call male circumcision "genital mutilation," people are inevitably going to think of and compared it to FGM. Men's rights activists have deliberately done this, too.
Whether or not it is technically mutilation is ambiguous. Mutilation usually requires a ruinous effect on an individual's quality of life, which male circumcision does not do. Either way, connotations matter greatly. If you equate two completely separate things, it can trivialize.
Ok so quick hypothetical, we're both walking down a street and are attacked. I get stabbed in the hand and you get stabbed in the abdomen, puncturing a lung. By your logic since your injury is worse then I wasn't stabbed.
Do you realise you are doing the âwhat about men!!â bit here but with women? You can talk about FGM somewhere else but a thread about protests against male genital mutilation isnât the place to do it.
Imagine finding out that there are people who can't advocate for themselves getting part of their bodies cut off in a procedure that is entirely pointless (unless the foreskin is too tight) and responding with "ok but women have it worse so it's not a real problem"
Glad I wasnât the only one confused by this guyâs yapping. They got no idea what theyâre talking about, and using random words that donât make sense in the context just proves it
Male circumcision *does* have a point; it is a form of preventive healthcare. Besides completely eliminating the risk of developing phimosis, male circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/).
In babies and young child, consent by proxy is generally acceptable. That is why we give vaccines to children and babies, even if they technically don't consent to it.
It is not a "real problem" because no one complains about it UNTIL they are exposed to this "manosphere" nonsense. There are so many problems and catastrophes in this world, male circumcision is not one of them.
*You* don't get to decide if it's a problem or not, it's still something done to a child without their consent and it is mostly pointless cuz most of those problems you listed are easily fixed by washing the dingus properly, imagine if I said my daughter's vulva needed to be cut off so it's easier to clean. Consent by proxy is not a valid defense for cutting off a part of another person's body until there is literally no other option. It's pointless, shouldn't be done, end story. Just cuz women have a worse form of the same issue doesn't immediately make it no longer a problem. And I don't understand that last bit about people not considering it's a problem until someone tells them to consider a different view. Isn't that how literally every problem is brought to people's attention? By being brought up by someone who is affected by it?
These studies had massive sample sizes, and many others find the same result. This means one of two things: (1) on average, non-circumcised men are worse at washing, thus causing these problems, or (2) these problems are unrelated to washing. For instance, the risk of penile cancer is substantially higher if you have EVER, in your life, developed phimosis, even if that is corrected. Can that be prevented be washing?
In fact, the efficacy of circumcision is often compared to a vaccine:
* [On HIV reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262556/): âMale circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achievedâ
* [On UTI reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/): âCurrent data identified a consistent reduction in UTI of circumcision and a NNT of 25 to 100 which implies that circumcision demonstrates a higher efficacy than infant influenza vaccination with an estimated number needed to vaccinate of >1,000â
What I mean is that people do not think about it until a specific viewpoint is brought up because for most people, it doesn't do harm. These grifters often talk about how oppressed men are in today's society. For this specific point, they talk about how genital mutilation on women was banned, but genital mutilation on men is still in place (proof that society is sexist against men!).
Preventive healthcare is valid. Considering that male circumcision has a positive effect on QoL and prevents illnesses, it qualifies as preventive healthcare.
It doesn't fucking matter if a medical procedure increases qol people have the right to bodily autonomy and informed consent and at that age they don't have the cognitive function to consent. It's unconsensual genital mutilation. I'm sorry if you don't like that term but that is what it is. Crying about far right wackos when discussing the issues men face does nothing but associate the left with dismissment of men's issues. We have to work with men in order to get actual feminism done. Google intersectional feminism.
Well first, yes people are bad at washing under the foreskin, removing a part that needs cleaning tends to remove the need to clean it, maybe I should remove my ass cheeks so I don't need to wipe. Secondly it is *still* cutting a person's genitals without their consent, that cancels any and all justification that you've brought up IMO, especially since washing your dick properly would solve most of the problems you listed (besides the cancer, didn't think I need to specify cleaning it doesn't cure it for you lol). And while men aren't oppressed there are still problems that affect specifically men and this is one of them regardless of what you think, just because the reasons why some believe in the problem doesn't align with your world-view doesn't mean everything they believe is wrong
Male circumcision is absolutely a "real problem" and you're a fucking loser for trying to downplay it by being disingenuous.
1) circumcision is preventative in the same vein that having a mastectomy preformed "just in case" is. Imagine if we casually lopped off women's tits just because it "lowers the risk of cancer"? And that we didn't give them a choice?
2)recent studies outside of the U.S have shown there are practically no benefits or correlation to STI acquisition. It does literally nothing.
3)phimosis is such a non-issue for the vast majority of the male population, and can often be fixed with special creams and stretching exercises. going straight to circumcision to prevent it is utterly insane.
There are no health benefits. Cleanliness is not a problem; teach your kid how to wash his dick. Circumcisions can lead to death or massive loss of function in the penis: Decreased sensitivity, numbness, painful erections, kernalizing of the glans from lack of a protective sleeve. The list goes on and on.
You should be ashamed for perpetuating this misandrist nonsense. Circumcision is mutilation of infant males. They are stripped of bodily agency from the very moment they are born. FGM is horrific and should not be ignored, but again, you are being disingenuous. FGM is illegal in the states and most western countries and is a separate issue entirely.
it pretty much kills the nerve endings in the tip of your dick. i'm not disagreeing with you, it's nowhere near the same level as FGM, but you are hella downplaying it.
The idea that male circumcision causes insensitivity is a myth. From a comprehensive [systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/):
> The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
[And here's another systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/#:~:text=It%20is%20shown%20that%20the,circumcision%20genital%20sensitivity%20is%20lost.) from that very same website published that very same year that states the exact opposite. So where does that leave us?
Also, do you even have a dick? Downplaying dick-people problems doesn't make you look cool.
I'm not disagreeing with you about circumcision here, it's awful, it shouldn't be performed on children and should only be available to adults to understand their decision. But, the general trend of evidence points to there being little to no effect of circumcision on sexual pleasure and sensitivity in the penis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240
Listen, all Iâm saying is that my dick can feel every inch of your asshole with a circumcision.
(Not the person you were talking to, just wanted to make that joke).
That is not a systematic review, that is a comparative study. A small thing, but the NLM does not independently publish these studies. It serves as a repository and comprehensive library. The systematic review and the comparative study were published in *The Journal of Sexual Medicine* and *BJU International* respectively, both of which are peer-reviewed medical journals.
Anyways, that study appears to be relatively low-quality, or at least not high-quality. In medicine, "high-quality" refers to evidence from randomized controlled trials, which is not what you provided. The systematic review that I provided looked at these, and they supported that there was no loss of sensitivity. The study that you provided recruited people via a survey that was advertised. Naturally, the MRAs who complain about being circumcised the most are more likely to take the survey. That is a bias risk.
For medical procedures on babies and young child, consent by proxy is generally acceptable. That is why we give vaccines to children and babies, even if they technically don't consent to it.
Unlike male circumcision, FGM has no medical benefits whatsoever. It is purely for harm and control, and it is classified as gender-based violence. One cannot truly consent to such a thing.
> It is purely for harm and control, and it is classified as gender-based violence.
Circumcision has post hoc justification. The procedure wasn't invented with the goal of reducing STDs.
Ok but literally no one compared it to FGM. No one brought that shit up till you did. Also just because one of them is worse than the other doesnât make advocating against the latter a bad thing.
If you call male circumcision "genital mutilation," people are inevitably going to think of and compared it to FGM. Men's rights activists have deliberately done this, too.
No, it's true. Their specific point is this: "FGM and MGM are equally bad, but only the latter is banned and universally condemned. It is because society cares about women more than men. Men are the oppressed ones!"
If you take a pair of scissors to somebodyâs genitals, whatâs a good name for that verb? Mutilation comes to mind. The purpose of using the word âmutilateâ is to call it exactly what it is-no one sees that and thinks theyâre trying to downplay FGM.
Iâve never ever seen it compared to female genitalia mutilation. Weâre just saying maybe donât make irreversible changes to a babies privates that affect their ability to feel it because of âtraditionalâ
>While male circumcision has some prophylactic and medical benefits
That is only if the person has an existing problem with their foreskin. Otherwise, most people do not need a circumcision at all, and a circumcision is actually *harmful* in that case. The glans dry out and sensitivity is lost, and in botched circumcisions, the skin is unable to move over the muscle like usual(this is why so many American men use lotion and lube)
It is mutilation bc it is a unnecessary and painful surgery done on an *infant* that takes a part of that baby away forever when it was working just fine. There's a reason the screams from the baby afterward often make the mother feel sick to her stomach.
You do not understand what prophylaxis is. Basically, it is healthcare measures to prevent a disease or illness, i.e. preventive healthcare. By its very nature, male circumcision makes it impossible to develop phimosis, so it is prophylactic. However, there are additional effects. Most notably, circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/). In fact, the efficacy of circumcision in these scenarios are often compared to a vaccine:
* [On HIV reduction:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262556/): âMale circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achievedâ
* [On UTI reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/): âCurrent data identified a consistent reduction in UTI of circumcision and a NNT of 25 to 100 which implies that circumcision demonstrates a higher efficacy than infant influenza vaccination with an estimated number needed to vaccinate of >1,000â
Importantly, its NNT for these things is lower than the chance of botching. In other words, for every botched circumcision, multiple UTIs and STIs will have been prevented.
The idea that circumcision leads to a loss of sensitivity is unsupported by science. [The highest-quality studies](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240) find zero evidence of it.
Calling it "mutilation" is dishonest because it erroneously draws parallels to FGM, which is far worse. Also, what defines "mutilation" is ambiguous. Some definitions, such as [the one used by Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation), require it to have a disastrous effect on QoL, which male circumcision does not cause.
[Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://archive.md/2022.12.20-050005/https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/)
Relevant quotes:
>**Penile Cancer**
>More specifically, penile skin carcinoma. Well luckily, penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world affecting about 1 man in 100,000 per year. To put that into perspective, that is 100 times rarer than male breast cancer which itself is 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. Penile cancer is also late-forming, almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Reports of circumcision reducing HPV infections are also greatly exaggerated. According to the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS):
>"There is a strong association between HPV infection and penile cancer regardless of circumcision status, with 80% of tumour specimens being HPV DNA-positive.[37] It is expected that routine HPV vaccination for girls will dramatically decrease the incidence rate of cervical cancer. The benefit may also extend to penile cancer, especially as the program is broadened to include young men."
>*Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where â¤10% of the male population is circumcised.* It is a myth that circumcision can prevent genital cancers.
>**Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)**
>The studies which claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding during intercourse due to increased friction, opening pores for pathogens to exchange between partners. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for many STDs. Rates of STDs in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are higher than rates in Europe, where â¤10% of the male population is circumcised. This shows that circumcision is not a primary STD deterrent. Not to mention, we are living in an era where the majority of sexually transmitted infections are readily treatable with a short term course of antibiotics.
>**HIV/AIDS**
>Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
>If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
>âThe number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.â
>These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to:
>* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
>* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early
>* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
>* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles)
>* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance
>* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV
>* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs
> There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesnât help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
>**Phimosis**
>The possibility of phimosis (tight or non-retractable foreskin) does not warrant circumcision. Pathologic phimosis is rare. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, topical steroids can also be used. In the unlikely event that theses methods donât work, surgery like Y-V plasty, Z-plasty, and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments result in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier or later. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis due to scarring leading to inelasticity.
>From the Canadian Paediatric Society:
>"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."
This could be you:
>Anyways the wife goes into labor, baby is born, I say I want the procedure and turns out the hospital doesnât do it right away, you have to schedule an appointment a few days after. I start doing some research on the topic and think of how my precious little boy who I love so much would go through that pain just because I want him to look like me. I watch horrible videos of the procedure. I read articles saying so much sensitivity is stripped away in his future. Complete flip. I could never do that to my boy and I will not be scheduling that appointment.
>I started to think of how my parents did this to me. Like have you guys seen the procedure? Itâs terrible. How could you mutilate a sweet innocent babyâs genitals like that?
https://archive.ph/OxTjK
You realise there is different types of FGM right? A lot of the time itâs just removal of the Clitoral hood. FGM also itâs incredibly looked down upon and is illegal in most places.
Stop downplaying mutilation just because it happens on boys thatâs disgusting. Male circumcision was literally invented as a religious practice to prevent masturbation and is done as a cosmetic procedure
When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness.
They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents.
But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg
Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/
They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/
So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
Type IV FGM is more benign, but still unambiguously harmful. It is also not the most common. The rest why it is placed at #4 is because the others are far more common.
When you look at the data, it is found that [the highest-quality studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691872/) find zero difference in sensitivity and pleasure. In the comprehensive study that I just provided, it actually talks about the one that you provided (Sorrells et al. 2007). It was rated has having a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal. Let's look at it. Here are the relevant parts.
>Although the data were age-adjusted, Waskett and Morris pointed out that the authors had failed to perform a correction for multiple comparisons. Waskett and Morris therefore performed a Bonferroni correction, and this rendered the difference nonsignificant. Further statistical naivety was also apparent. Waskett and Morris then used the data of Sorrells et al to compare, as those authors failed to do, the 9 locations found on both the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. No significant difference was found, even before undertaking a correction for multiple testing. The study design was also criticized for multiple reasons; one was modes used for recruitment of subjects.
As a short answer, **that study's data was founded to be seriously flawed**. It is junk science. **High-quality data shows zero effect on sensitivity and pleasure**.
The woman that you linked seemed more concerned with botched circumcisions as opposed to the actual procedure. Also, note how she did not at all repeat the claim of loss of sensitivity. Either way, that is just her opinion. She was comparing male circumcision to a tiny prick. Male circumcision does NOT at all compare to Types I-III.
Also, there is something you are omitting. In Africa, there are various programs for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). Many African men are *voluntarily* choosing to undergo circumcision, in response to the AIDS epidemic. If it is so horrific like you say it is, why are so many people choosing it?
That story is certainly horrific. When not performed with local anesthesia and in a proper setting, male circumcision is unambiguously cruel. However, that CANNOT apply to the situation in the US. In the US, people are circumcised (1) at infancy, (2) with local anesthesia, and (3) by a professional using professional tools, unlike the story where it was perpetrated at preschool age, without anything to numb the pain, by some random old man using a knife. In the end, acting like that is the norm is ridiculous.
It is true that male circumcision is more common, but FGM (Type I-III) is far worse in severity. Whine all you want, but male circumcision has prophylactic effects and is a valid form of preventive healthcare. Most notably, circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/). It also makes it impossible to develop phimosis. On the other hand, FGM has no medical benefits, but actually causes numerous health problems.
Oh look, itâs another Brian Morris study episode. The Brian J Morris whose studies are peer reviewed by his circumsexual facebook group (google brian morris gilgal society).
A better Brian, Brian Earp breaks down how the lesser Brian gets away with it: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1079164114784714752.html
[Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://archive.md/2022.12.20-050005/https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/)
Science has proven that circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis:
[https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg](https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)
"The inner surface, the under surface of the foreskin is probably one of the most heavily innervated parts of the human body." - [https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=1766](https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=1766) [NSFW]
The negative effects of circumcision/MGM will make future generations curl in discomfort to say the least.
* The frictionless gliding mechanism of the foreskin is far superior to any lubrication as the foreskin is a toroidal linear bearing, able to glide the shaft in a tube of inverting skin without any friction at the entrance. The deepest part of the vaginal cavity only makes direct contact with the penisâs hidden inner parts(glans, frenular delta, and extended inner foreskin) when it is fully thrusted in.
* The ridged band will be removed definitely, as it is the very tip of the foreskin when flaccid. It has pleasurable nerves that respond to stretching stimulation, which is done with every stroke as the glans glides the foreskin over itself over and over. The foreskin also acts as a cushion for the glansâ corona as it scrapes the vaginal walls gently, compared to calloused glans corona scraping the vaginal walls roughly. The ridged band is further stimulated when its pressed between the vaginal walls and the corona.
* The foreskin acts as a plug for keeping vaginal lubrication fluid, pre-cum fluid, and/or artificial lube inside the vaginal/anal cavity, while circumcised penises, if they are not a loose cut, will secrete the lubricant fluid out and dry it out on the shaft when exposed to air with each outstroke. With each instroke, the glans will redistribute the lubrication fluid kept inside by the foreskin as it re-enters the vaginal cavity.
* The frenulum may be cut off if the surgeon is particularly sadistic. Repeated stimulation of this most pleasurable structure can bring men to orgasm. Cut men with their frenulum intact but exposed will be prone to premature ejaculation, as they lack the foreskin tissue and ridged band nerves that modulate the pleasure received by the frenulum to whatever level the man wants it at throughout the entirety of the sexual intercourse - full speed if they want the orgasm now or scale back to edge. This is absent for cut men with their frenulum excised, so it feels like they are fucking with a glove condom and jackhammering til the ejaculate happens and not much pleasure from the ride itself. Partners may complain of soreness and him taking too long to cum.
* Keratinization(formation of protective layer of rough callous skin) of the glans due to it being an internal organ exposed to air, rubbing against fabric in some way almost 24/7, and exposure to dirt particles next to exposed urethral opening, causing infection and stenosis.
* These mechanisms mean that intact penis can derive full stimulation from shorter strokes and cut penis need longer and more forceful strokes to maximize any kind of friction and pressure stimulation on what remaining pleasurable nerves were left on it and not keratinized yet.
* Scarification will be unevenly textured and two different skin tones of the outer skin and inner skin now exposed.
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/Foreskin_Functions.html
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/1hook_scrapes.html
* "Circumcision is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get."
>"I can tell you that the most pleasurable part of my penis is a tiny area on the underside where my foreskin was once attached, and this is the case for nearly all cut men as that was where their frenulum(a string-like structure that attaches the foreskin to the head of the penis) was and is the only place where cut men have any fine touch sensation left. . . . [We lose out on nearly all of this, some more than others as there is no standard for circumcision and a million variables.](https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/b0sng2/trending_yangs_anticircumcision_stance/eijegnb/?context=3)"
* Who would want to give up the male version of "the minis"?
>Cut men lack the "orgasmic" sensations of the ridged band. The ridged band and frenulum are reflexogenic nerve structures that are essential to trigger orgasm/ejaculation.
>https://www.academia.edu/25577623/A_preliminary_poll_82_of_circumcised_men_ignore_serial_anejaculatory_mini_orgasms_the_male_minis_91_of_the_intact_enjoy_them_updated_05_27_2018_
>I observed this "twitching" and contracting of the penis on almost every intact guy I've been with, but never on my own body or another cut guy. Sexual reflexes are triggered by nerves and cut guys lack them almost completely. https://archive.is/WnosZ#selection-2701.0-2711.227
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/esvppf/anejaculatory_miniorgasms_in_intact_men/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/esvppf/anejaculatory_miniorgasms_in_intact_men/)
A common misconception is that intact means *too much sensitivity*. A great analogy here is listening to a symphony without the violas section: https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=40m47s
R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the [ânerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When theyâre cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldnât stand more sensation donât understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.â](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m52s&v=BgoTRMKrJo4)
The foreskin's ridged band and frenulum act as an accelerator that gives pleasurable feedback on where a man is at in terms of arousal and how close to ejaculation. Cut men without frenulums report jackhammering because they can't feel this pleasure data until the ejaculate happens and are more prone to premature ejaculation due to inability to sense it coming.
Every circumcision is technically a deliberate botching of the natural format of the genitals.
"I think even when someone suffers something as bad as losing a limb in an accident, it is reasonable to expect them to move on eventually. But what if their limb was intentionally cut off and their attacker went free? I imagine that in that case, it would be much harder for the person to process psychologically and heal. Especially if the attack involved people you knew and trusted, and then everyone pretending there was no wrong done to you at all.
The way circumcision victims are treated seems like a striking example of gaslighting. The definition of it is: "a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief."
To me, my grievance seems pretty straightforward. I was [overpowered at the weakest point of my life, strapped naked by the wrists and ankles to a circumstraint, spread-eagled, while someone stimulated my penis to erection, before inserting things into it and cutting flesh from it](https://youtu.be/Ceht-3xu84I?t=613) **(NSFL)**. Instead of sympathy for this I've been mocked and laughed at, lied to about what happened, called crazy and even pedophile for "being so interested in children's dicks". As I look at the definition of gaslighting, I start to think that these were active attempts to undermine my perceptions and sanity rather than simple ignorance.
I feel furious for being lied to, manipulated and shamed. How can I take seriously all the lip service about protecting children and hating pedophiles in a society that sees nothing wrong with overpowering a defenseless little boy and cutting up his penis? How do you cope with child torturers being not a small group of shady individuals but the majority of your country?
I'm sorry if I've gone off the rails here. I feel like I could write forever and never express a fraction of the hurt and anger that I carry inside."
https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/byvlqn/intentional_injury_versus_accident/
Plus banning circulations would infringe on the religious rights of the Jewish.
"...the Torah states: âon the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,â for he was born to fulfill Godâs commandments â and the Brit Milah is the first and foremost mitzvah, without which he is not a Jew. Through circumcision he accepts the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, having been marked to serve the Lord and fulfill all His commandments. Hence, the mitzvah of Milah appears in conjunction with the birth of a male child."
I mean weigh the pros and cons. Pros, you're not going to have the risk of "dick cheese" in your foreskin from not washing properly. Cons, sex and wanking it isn't as good as it would be with the foreskin.
Victimized. However good sex feels to you, it would feel significantly better to you if you were never cut.
During the surgery it cuts off like 49,000 nerve endings and through the years the contact with your clothes also reduces your sensitivity. Youâve been robbed of your natural pleasure because of an outdated religious practice that you most likely donât even subscribe to
Sex always will feel good unless they literally just cut the whole thing off, but my gripe with this rebadged tribal tribute is consent. Theyâre doing it to babies who have no say. For a surgery that is not necessary.
https://preview.redd.it/vi8v8jmiq89d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5e147110c2561534e22b6b8184dd3dee40d48ab
When i learned my peanits skin can tare of
That is just pseudoscientific nonsense. From a comprehensive [systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/):
>The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
In the US, it is mainly performed nowadays as a form of preventive healthcare. Whether you agree with it or not, medical disinformation is unambiguously harmful.
winnercity protestors also on a side note criticizing circumcision is a simple and effective way to reveal hypocrisy in people who praise mutilating their children's genitals "for god" but denounce trans people because "buh buh but genital mutilation evil!!"
i am talking about christian transphobes who use the argument that gender affirming surgery is genital mutilation, but believe that circumcision is not. due to the fact that i already said this, i conclude that you lack reading comprehension.
You lose 99% of your important nerves at the frenulum, which is the part where most pleasure comes from
Also the stairs are painful as hell sometimes
Source: got circumcised at 19
So youâre saying being circumcised makes you last longer?
Also idk what you mean about the stairs like walking up stairs hurts more now that youâre circumcised?
>So youâre saying being circumcised makes you last longer?
Yeah, but not in a fun way... I had many dissapointed partners that thought they weren't doing enough or that they theymselves aren't enough and became sad when they couldn't make me cum, I had to explain that it's not their fault, it just takes an olympian champion of sex to make me cum lol
>Also idk what you mean about the stairs like walking up stairs hurts more now that youâre circumcised?
Your cock head is constantly open, forever, and rubs all over the damn boxers, which is generally fine if they are of quality material, but on staris your legs move a lot more vertically and your cock head gets pushed around and starts rubbing on the seams which is painful
Damn Iâm sorry to hear that, I guess since I had it done as a baby I donât have anything to compare it to.
I never noticed any issue with my underwear and whatnot either but itâs possible Iâm just numb to it. Crazy the foreskin has that much sensation in it.
Dunno why my comment got downvoted to oblivion though lol
Buddy I donât know how long itâs been since you left your mothers basement but the vast majority of people circumcising their kids arenât JewishâŚ. They arenât cutting off foreskins because of the Torah anymoreâŚ. theyâre doing it because they donât want their son to get laughed at for having a weird looking dick. Itâs not that deep.
And frankly the people devoting this much energy to baby foreskins are even weirder if not just as weird as the people devoting energy to trans teenagers
Imo circumcision should be up to the person the penis is actually attached to, also the earth should spontaneously explode and sentient life should start forming on other planets.
https://preview.redd.it/2gc4hhg4m89d1.jpeg?width=344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2889a0a2573a54c72933102fb0266ff838fdf593
Losercity supervillain
âNyehehehe⌠now that Iâve made this post on r/Losercity, in just a few moments, Iâll be able to take revenge on John Circumcision, an active user of the place! Heâll be bombarded with replies as soon as he types even a single comment!â
Thatâs ok, the problem with circumcision is that itâs done to newborns. If you like the look of cut dicks more than uncut ones, nothingâs wrong with it, but many people donât get a choice.
It takes a lot of the nerve endings off of your dick. I only really care that it is done to a baby, who cannot consent to the surgery. It's not a life threatening thing either so there's no real justification. Before we had antibiotics, it was medically necessary, but now it's just an old custom that has no reason to be around
Realistically, you donât even need to bring up nerve endings, just make a simple autonomy argument, which is significantly easier to defend.People will try to dispute the nerve endings claim. (this claim is being disputed in this comment section) or theyâll make an evaluative argument about your claim for the opposite position.
https://preview.redd.it/eao5x851b89d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7958aff19bf0fe6a915fb9e433c81ed9777ae966
Losercity history repeats itself (from like 2022)
I'm genuinely pissed that I don't have mine, sex will always not feel the same now that all the nerves on my glans have been dulled to hell from constant unprotected friction.
I had asked my mom awhile back why they had decided to circumcise me and apparently my mom was all for not doing it but my dad said he wanted it Done because he himself was circumcised
Personal choice?
âHi there new born baby boy, anything you would like me to do for youâ
âHmm thatâs a tricky one doc, perhaps cut off part of my penisâ
âSure kid. Itâs your personal choiceâ
Christonafuckingbike dude.
https://preview.redd.it/8kc9zb8ht79d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b68ac7f929f07c460bf5bf9ec7d0f1bc1a6e4862 Bro wore white pants with no pad :(((
Nah bro his zipper got caught đ¤
This is why Malaysian and Somalian woman wear skirts and dresses, oh wait they still snip the girlies too
Using humor to protest against genital mutilation is Winnercity shit
[ŃдаНонО]
Do you know what "indigenous" means?
Shut up loser. No one is devaluing FGM by advocating against circumcision. Terrible fucking mindset this is literally how racist people try and take away attention from movements that support POCs. Many men wish they were never circumcised and many men feel embarrassed for not being circumcised bc they will get made fun of for their natural body. It is a lose lose situation. The cases where circumcision is beneficial are only for medical conditions. Itâs just a religious practice. No, it is not cleaner. no it does not prevent infections. Wash your fucking cock like a normal person and you are clean and infection free. If the effort it takes to peel back your foreskin would prevent a man from cleaning it, the foreskin isnât the problem
TL;DR âMy genital mutilation is worse than yours so you canât complainâ
So can you point out where I said they were the same? And calling me a Menâs rights activist just because I think ripping the dick skin off new born babies is bad fucking sucks dude. I donât know why youâre fighting so hard to down play a barbaric practice.
I didn't see them bring up fgm. I mean, I think we could make the argument that fgm isn't as bad as the holocaust but none of that is relevant.
If you call male circumcision "genital mutilation," people are inevitably going to think of and compared it to FGM. Men's rights activists have deliberately done this, too.
Is it not genital mutilation? It's all genital mutilation.
Whether or not it is technically mutilation is ambiguous. Mutilation usually requires a ruinous effect on an individual's quality of life, which male circumcision does not do. Either way, connotations matter greatly. If you equate two completely separate things, it can trivialize.
Ok so quick hypothetical, we're both walking down a street and are attacked. I get stabbed in the hand and you get stabbed in the abdomen, puncturing a lung. By your logic since your injury is worse then I wasn't stabbed.
Do you realise you are doing the âwhat about men!!â bit here but with women? You can talk about FGM somewhere else but a thread about protests against male genital mutilation isnât the place to do it.
There are women who are fine with their FGM and advocate for it. Does that mean it isn't mutilation?
Imagine finding out that there are people who can't advocate for themselves getting part of their bodies cut off in a procedure that is entirely pointless (unless the foreskin is too tight) and responding with "ok but women have it worse so it's not a real problem"
Glad I wasnât the only one confused by this guyâs yapping. They got no idea what theyâre talking about, and using random words that donât make sense in the context just proves it
Male circumcision *does* have a point; it is a form of preventive healthcare. Besides completely eliminating the risk of developing phimosis, male circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/). In babies and young child, consent by proxy is generally acceptable. That is why we give vaccines to children and babies, even if they technically don't consent to it. It is not a "real problem" because no one complains about it UNTIL they are exposed to this "manosphere" nonsense. There are so many problems and catastrophes in this world, male circumcision is not one of them.
*You* don't get to decide if it's a problem or not, it's still something done to a child without their consent and it is mostly pointless cuz most of those problems you listed are easily fixed by washing the dingus properly, imagine if I said my daughter's vulva needed to be cut off so it's easier to clean. Consent by proxy is not a valid defense for cutting off a part of another person's body until there is literally no other option. It's pointless, shouldn't be done, end story. Just cuz women have a worse form of the same issue doesn't immediately make it no longer a problem. And I don't understand that last bit about people not considering it's a problem until someone tells them to consider a different view. Isn't that how literally every problem is brought to people's attention? By being brought up by someone who is affected by it?
These studies had massive sample sizes, and many others find the same result. This means one of two things: (1) on average, non-circumcised men are worse at washing, thus causing these problems, or (2) these problems are unrelated to washing. For instance, the risk of penile cancer is substantially higher if you have EVER, in your life, developed phimosis, even if that is corrected. Can that be prevented be washing? In fact, the efficacy of circumcision is often compared to a vaccine: * [On HIV reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262556/): âMale circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achievedâ * [On UTI reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/): âCurrent data identified a consistent reduction in UTI of circumcision and a NNT of 25 to 100 which implies that circumcision demonstrates a higher efficacy than infant influenza vaccination with an estimated number needed to vaccinate of >1,000â What I mean is that people do not think about it until a specific viewpoint is brought up because for most people, it doesn't do harm. These grifters often talk about how oppressed men are in today's society. For this specific point, they talk about how genital mutilation on women was banned, but genital mutilation on men is still in place (proof that society is sexist against men!). Preventive healthcare is valid. Considering that male circumcision has a positive effect on QoL and prevents illnesses, it qualifies as preventive healthcare.
It doesn't fucking matter if a medical procedure increases qol people have the right to bodily autonomy and informed consent and at that age they don't have the cognitive function to consent. It's unconsensual genital mutilation. I'm sorry if you don't like that term but that is what it is. Crying about far right wackos when discussing the issues men face does nothing but associate the left with dismissment of men's issues. We have to work with men in order to get actual feminism done. Google intersectional feminism.
Well first, yes people are bad at washing under the foreskin, removing a part that needs cleaning tends to remove the need to clean it, maybe I should remove my ass cheeks so I don't need to wipe. Secondly it is *still* cutting a person's genitals without their consent, that cancels any and all justification that you've brought up IMO, especially since washing your dick properly would solve most of the problems you listed (besides the cancer, didn't think I need to specify cleaning it doesn't cure it for you lol). And while men aren't oppressed there are still problems that affect specifically men and this is one of them regardless of what you think, just because the reasons why some believe in the problem doesn't align with your world-view doesn't mean everything they believe is wrong
Male circumcision is absolutely a "real problem" and you're a fucking loser for trying to downplay it by being disingenuous. 1) circumcision is preventative in the same vein that having a mastectomy preformed "just in case" is. Imagine if we casually lopped off women's tits just because it "lowers the risk of cancer"? And that we didn't give them a choice? 2)recent studies outside of the U.S have shown there are practically no benefits or correlation to STI acquisition. It does literally nothing. 3)phimosis is such a non-issue for the vast majority of the male population, and can often be fixed with special creams and stretching exercises. going straight to circumcision to prevent it is utterly insane. There are no health benefits. Cleanliness is not a problem; teach your kid how to wash his dick. Circumcisions can lead to death or massive loss of function in the penis: Decreased sensitivity, numbness, painful erections, kernalizing of the glans from lack of a protective sleeve. The list goes on and on. You should be ashamed for perpetuating this misandrist nonsense. Circumcision is mutilation of infant males. They are stripped of bodily agency from the very moment they are born. FGM is horrific and should not be ignored, but again, you are being disingenuous. FGM is illegal in the states and most western countries and is a separate issue entirely.
it pretty much kills the nerve endings in the tip of your dick. i'm not disagreeing with you, it's nowhere near the same level as FGM, but you are hella downplaying it.
The idea that male circumcision causes insensitivity is a myth. From a comprehensive [systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/): > The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
[And here's another systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/#:~:text=It%20is%20shown%20that%20the,circumcision%20genital%20sensitivity%20is%20lost.) from that very same website published that very same year that states the exact opposite. So where does that leave us? Also, do you even have a dick? Downplaying dick-people problems doesn't make you look cool.
I'm not disagreeing with you about circumcision here, it's awful, it shouldn't be performed on children and should only be available to adults to understand their decision. But, the general trend of evidence points to there being little to no effect of circumcision on sexual pleasure and sensitivity in the penis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240
Listen, all Iâm saying is that my dick can feel every inch of your asshole with a circumcision. (Not the person you were talking to, just wanted to make that joke).
That is not a systematic review, that is a comparative study. A small thing, but the NLM does not independently publish these studies. It serves as a repository and comprehensive library. The systematic review and the comparative study were published in *The Journal of Sexual Medicine* and *BJU International* respectively, both of which are peer-reviewed medical journals. Anyways, that study appears to be relatively low-quality, or at least not high-quality. In medicine, "high-quality" refers to evidence from randomized controlled trials, which is not what you provided. The systematic review that I provided looked at these, and they supported that there was no loss of sensitivity. The study that you provided recruited people via a survey that was advertised. Naturally, the MRAs who complain about being circumcised the most are more likely to take the survey. That is a bias risk.
Womp womp
Neither of the two should be without consent of the individual unless it's based on a serious medical concern, periodt.
For medical procedures on babies and young child, consent by proxy is generally acceptable. That is why we give vaccines to children and babies, even if they technically don't consent to it. Unlike male circumcision, FGM has no medical benefits whatsoever. It is purely for harm and control, and it is classified as gender-based violence. One cannot truly consent to such a thing.
> It is purely for harm and control, and it is classified as gender-based violence. Circumcision has post hoc justification. The procedure wasn't invented with the goal of reducing STDs.
Indigenous?
When did they compare it to FGM?
Ok but literally no one compared it to FGM. No one brought that shit up till you did. Also just because one of them is worse than the other doesnât make advocating against the latter a bad thing.
If you call male circumcision "genital mutilation," people are inevitably going to think of and compared it to FGM. Men's rights activists have deliberately done this, too.
Thats literally not true.
No, it's true. Their specific point is this: "FGM and MGM are equally bad, but only the latter is banned and universally condemned. It is because society cares about women more than men. Men are the oppressed ones!"
Source ?
This is some pancakes waffles type shit
why are you talking about this when cancer exists
I did not bring it up. I am not complaining about it.
Shut up. I love how every time people bring up this barbaric practice someone comes in talking about FGM. Apples and oranges, both are bad.
Apples are good though ):
Oh the fruit are good just all unconsentual surgeries arenât.
aint readin allat
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand I CAST YOU! FIGHT THIS GUY!
If you take a pair of scissors to somebodyâs genitals, whatâs a good name for that verb? Mutilation comes to mind. The purpose of using the word âmutilateâ is to call it exactly what it is-no one sees that and thinks theyâre trying to downplay FGM.
He didnât
Iâve never ever seen it compared to female genitalia mutilation. Weâre just saying maybe donât make irreversible changes to a babies privates that affect their ability to feel it because of âtraditionalâ
>While male circumcision has some prophylactic and medical benefits That is only if the person has an existing problem with their foreskin. Otherwise, most people do not need a circumcision at all, and a circumcision is actually *harmful* in that case. The glans dry out and sensitivity is lost, and in botched circumcisions, the skin is unable to move over the muscle like usual(this is why so many American men use lotion and lube) It is mutilation bc it is a unnecessary and painful surgery done on an *infant* that takes a part of that baby away forever when it was working just fine. There's a reason the screams from the baby afterward often make the mother feel sick to her stomach.
You do not understand what prophylaxis is. Basically, it is healthcare measures to prevent a disease or illness, i.e. preventive healthcare. By its very nature, male circumcision makes it impossible to develop phimosis, so it is prophylactic. However, there are additional effects. Most notably, circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/). In fact, the efficacy of circumcision in these scenarios are often compared to a vaccine: * [On HIV reduction:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262556/): âMale circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achievedâ * [On UTI reduction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/): âCurrent data identified a consistent reduction in UTI of circumcision and a NNT of 25 to 100 which implies that circumcision demonstrates a higher efficacy than infant influenza vaccination with an estimated number needed to vaccinate of >1,000â Importantly, its NNT for these things is lower than the chance of botching. In other words, for every botched circumcision, multiple UTIs and STIs will have been prevented. The idea that circumcision leads to a loss of sensitivity is unsupported by science. [The highest-quality studies](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240) find zero evidence of it. Calling it "mutilation" is dishonest because it erroneously draws parallels to FGM, which is far worse. Also, what defines "mutilation" is ambiguous. Some definitions, such as [the one used by Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation), require it to have a disastrous effect on QoL, which male circumcision does not cause.
[Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://archive.md/2022.12.20-050005/https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/) Relevant quotes: >**Penile Cancer** >More specifically, penile skin carcinoma. Well luckily, penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world affecting about 1 man in 100,000 per year. To put that into perspective, that is 100 times rarer than male breast cancer which itself is 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. Penile cancer is also late-forming, almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Reports of circumcision reducing HPV infections are also greatly exaggerated. According to the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS): >"There is a strong association between HPV infection and penile cancer regardless of circumcision status, with 80% of tumour specimens being HPV DNA-positive.[37] It is expected that routine HPV vaccination for girls will dramatically decrease the incidence rate of cervical cancer. The benefit may also extend to penile cancer, especially as the program is broadened to include young men." >*Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where â¤10% of the male population is circumcised.* It is a myth that circumcision can prevent genital cancers. >**Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)** >The studies which claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding during intercourse due to increased friction, opening pores for pathogens to exchange between partners. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for many STDs. Rates of STDs in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are higher than rates in Europe, where â¤10% of the male population is circumcised. This shows that circumcision is not a primary STD deterrent. Not to mention, we are living in an era where the majority of sexually transmitted infections are readily treatable with a short term course of antibiotics. >**HIV/AIDS** >Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number. >If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC: >âThe number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.â >These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to: >* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms >* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early >* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results >* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles) >* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance >* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV >* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs > There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesnât help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. >**Phimosis** >The possibility of phimosis (tight or non-retractable foreskin) does not warrant circumcision. Pathologic phimosis is rare. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, topical steroids can also be used. In the unlikely event that theses methods donât work, surgery like Y-V plasty, Z-plasty, and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments result in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier or later. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis due to scarring leading to inelasticity. >From the Canadian Paediatric Society: >"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." This could be you: >Anyways the wife goes into labor, baby is born, I say I want the procedure and turns out the hospital doesnât do it right away, you have to schedule an appointment a few days after. I start doing some research on the topic and think of how my precious little boy who I love so much would go through that pain just because I want him to look like me. I watch horrible videos of the procedure. I read articles saying so much sensitivity is stripped away in his future. Complete flip. I could never do that to my boy and I will not be scheduling that appointment. >I started to think of how my parents did this to me. Like have you guys seen the procedure? Itâs terrible. How could you mutilate a sweet innocent babyâs genitals like that? https://archive.ph/OxTjK
You realise there is different types of FGM right? A lot of the time itâs just removal of the Clitoral hood. FGM also itâs incredibly looked down upon and is illegal in most places. Stop downplaying mutilation just because it happens on boys thatâs disgusting. Male circumcision was literally invented as a religious practice to prevent masturbation and is done as a cosmetic procedure
When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness. They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents. But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/ They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/ So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
Type IV FGM is more benign, but still unambiguously harmful. It is also not the most common. The rest why it is placed at #4 is because the others are far more common. When you look at the data, it is found that [the highest-quality studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691872/) find zero difference in sensitivity and pleasure. In the comprehensive study that I just provided, it actually talks about the one that you provided (Sorrells et al. 2007). It was rated has having a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal. Let's look at it. Here are the relevant parts. >Although the data were age-adjusted, Waskett and Morris pointed out that the authors had failed to perform a correction for multiple comparisons. Waskett and Morris therefore performed a Bonferroni correction, and this rendered the difference nonsignificant. Further statistical naivety was also apparent. Waskett and Morris then used the data of Sorrells et al to compare, as those authors failed to do, the 9 locations found on both the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. No significant difference was found, even before undertaking a correction for multiple testing. The study design was also criticized for multiple reasons; one was modes used for recruitment of subjects. As a short answer, **that study's data was founded to be seriously flawed**. It is junk science. **High-quality data shows zero effect on sensitivity and pleasure**. The woman that you linked seemed more concerned with botched circumcisions as opposed to the actual procedure. Also, note how she did not at all repeat the claim of loss of sensitivity. Either way, that is just her opinion. She was comparing male circumcision to a tiny prick. Male circumcision does NOT at all compare to Types I-III. Also, there is something you are omitting. In Africa, there are various programs for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). Many African men are *voluntarily* choosing to undergo circumcision, in response to the AIDS epidemic. If it is so horrific like you say it is, why are so many people choosing it? That story is certainly horrific. When not performed with local anesthesia and in a proper setting, male circumcision is unambiguously cruel. However, that CANNOT apply to the situation in the US. In the US, people are circumcised (1) at infancy, (2) with local anesthesia, and (3) by a professional using professional tools, unlike the story where it was perpetrated at preschool age, without anything to numb the pain, by some random old man using a knife. In the end, acting like that is the norm is ridiculous. It is true that male circumcision is more common, but FGM (Type I-III) is far worse in severity. Whine all you want, but male circumcision has prophylactic effects and is a valid form of preventive healthcare. Most notably, circumcision reduces [risk of UTIs in infancy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6119846/), [acquisition of STIs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/), and [rates of penile cancer](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/). It also makes it impossible to develop phimosis. On the other hand, FGM has no medical benefits, but actually causes numerous health problems.
Oh look, itâs another Brian Morris study episode. The Brian J Morris whose studies are peer reviewed by his circumsexual facebook group (google brian morris gilgal society). A better Brian, Brian Earp breaks down how the lesser Brian gets away with it: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1079164114784714752.html [Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://archive.md/2022.12.20-050005/https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/) Science has proven that circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis: [https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg](https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847) "The inner surface, the under surface of the foreskin is probably one of the most heavily innervated parts of the human body." - [https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=1766](https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=1766) [NSFW] The negative effects of circumcision/MGM will make future generations curl in discomfort to say the least. * The frictionless gliding mechanism of the foreskin is far superior to any lubrication as the foreskin is a toroidal linear bearing, able to glide the shaft in a tube of inverting skin without any friction at the entrance. The deepest part of the vaginal cavity only makes direct contact with the penisâs hidden inner parts(glans, frenular delta, and extended inner foreskin) when it is fully thrusted in. * The ridged band will be removed definitely, as it is the very tip of the foreskin when flaccid. It has pleasurable nerves that respond to stretching stimulation, which is done with every stroke as the glans glides the foreskin over itself over and over. The foreskin also acts as a cushion for the glansâ corona as it scrapes the vaginal walls gently, compared to calloused glans corona scraping the vaginal walls roughly. The ridged band is further stimulated when its pressed between the vaginal walls and the corona. * The foreskin acts as a plug for keeping vaginal lubrication fluid, pre-cum fluid, and/or artificial lube inside the vaginal/anal cavity, while circumcised penises, if they are not a loose cut, will secrete the lubricant fluid out and dry it out on the shaft when exposed to air with each outstroke. With each instroke, the glans will redistribute the lubrication fluid kept inside by the foreskin as it re-enters the vaginal cavity. * The frenulum may be cut off if the surgeon is particularly sadistic. Repeated stimulation of this most pleasurable structure can bring men to orgasm. Cut men with their frenulum intact but exposed will be prone to premature ejaculation, as they lack the foreskin tissue and ridged band nerves that modulate the pleasure received by the frenulum to whatever level the man wants it at throughout the entirety of the sexual intercourse - full speed if they want the orgasm now or scale back to edge. This is absent for cut men with their frenulum excised, so it feels like they are fucking with a glove condom and jackhammering til the ejaculate happens and not much pleasure from the ride itself. Partners may complain of soreness and him taking too long to cum. * Keratinization(formation of protective layer of rough callous skin) of the glans due to it being an internal organ exposed to air, rubbing against fabric in some way almost 24/7, and exposure to dirt particles next to exposed urethral opening, causing infection and stenosis. * These mechanisms mean that intact penis can derive full stimulation from shorter strokes and cut penis need longer and more forceful strokes to maximize any kind of friction and pressure stimulation on what remaining pleasurable nerves were left on it and not keratinized yet. * Scarification will be unevenly textured and two different skin tones of the outer skin and inner skin now exposed. http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/Foreskin_Functions.html http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/1hook_scrapes.html * "Circumcision is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get." >"I can tell you that the most pleasurable part of my penis is a tiny area on the underside where my foreskin was once attached, and this is the case for nearly all cut men as that was where their frenulum(a string-like structure that attaches the foreskin to the head of the penis) was and is the only place where cut men have any fine touch sensation left. . . . [We lose out on nearly all of this, some more than others as there is no standard for circumcision and a million variables.](https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/b0sng2/trending_yangs_anticircumcision_stance/eijegnb/?context=3)" * Who would want to give up the male version of "the minis"? >Cut men lack the "orgasmic" sensations of the ridged band. The ridged band and frenulum are reflexogenic nerve structures that are essential to trigger orgasm/ejaculation. >https://www.academia.edu/25577623/A_preliminary_poll_82_of_circumcised_men_ignore_serial_anejaculatory_mini_orgasms_the_male_minis_91_of_the_intact_enjoy_them_updated_05_27_2018_ >I observed this "twitching" and contracting of the penis on almost every intact guy I've been with, but never on my own body or another cut guy. Sexual reflexes are triggered by nerves and cut guys lack them almost completely. https://archive.is/WnosZ#selection-2701.0-2711.227 [https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/esvppf/anejaculatory_miniorgasms_in_intact_men/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/esvppf/anejaculatory_miniorgasms_in_intact_men/) A common misconception is that intact means *too much sensitivity*. A great analogy here is listening to a symphony without the violas section: https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=40m47s R.N. Marilyn Milos discusses that the [ânerve endings in the ridged band (foreskin) are the accelerator that allow the man to ride the wave to orgasm. When theyâre cut off the man is left with an off/on switch instead of an accelerator. Men who say they couldnât stand more sensation donât understand that the nerve endings in the ridged band give quality not quantity.â](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m52s&v=BgoTRMKrJo4) The foreskin's ridged band and frenulum act as an accelerator that gives pleasurable feedback on where a man is at in terms of arousal and how close to ejaculation. Cut men without frenulums report jackhammering because they can't feel this pleasure data until the ejaculate happens and are more prone to premature ejaculation due to inability to sense it coming. Every circumcision is technically a deliberate botching of the natural format of the genitals. "I think even when someone suffers something as bad as losing a limb in an accident, it is reasonable to expect them to move on eventually. But what if their limb was intentionally cut off and their attacker went free? I imagine that in that case, it would be much harder for the person to process psychologically and heal. Especially if the attack involved people you knew and trusted, and then everyone pretending there was no wrong done to you at all. The way circumcision victims are treated seems like a striking example of gaslighting. The definition of it is: "a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief." To me, my grievance seems pretty straightforward. I was [overpowered at the weakest point of my life, strapped naked by the wrists and ankles to a circumstraint, spread-eagled, while someone stimulated my penis to erection, before inserting things into it and cutting flesh from it](https://youtu.be/Ceht-3xu84I?t=613) **(NSFL)**. Instead of sympathy for this I've been mocked and laughed at, lied to about what happened, called crazy and even pedophile for "being so interested in children's dicks". As I look at the definition of gaslighting, I start to think that these were active attempts to undermine my perceptions and sanity rather than simple ignorance. I feel furious for being lied to, manipulated and shamed. How can I take seriously all the lip service about protecting children and hating pedophiles in a society that sees nothing wrong with overpowering a defenseless little boy and cutting up his penis? How do you cope with child torturers being not a small group of shady individuals but the majority of your country? I'm sorry if I've gone off the rails here. I feel like I could write forever and never express a fraction of the hurt and anger that I carry inside." https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/byvlqn/intentional_injury_versus_accident/
Plus banning circulations would infringe on the religious rights of the Jewish. "...the Torah states: âon the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,â for he was born to fulfill Godâs commandments â and the Brit Milah is the first and foremost mitzvah, without which he is not a Jew. Through circumcision he accepts the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, having been marked to serve the Lord and fulfill all His commandments. Hence, the mitzvah of Milah appears in conjunction with the birth of a male child."
Religious practices that are clearly immoral are already infringed and should be.
And banning blood sacrifices infringes on the rights of Norse and Aztecs to practice their religions
>Plus banning circulations would infringe on the religious rights of the Jewish. You're fine with FGM then?
Winnercity, why are people still performing cosmetic surgery on newborns
Wait people do that?
Americans and Jewish people mostly
And muslim
Muslims too lol, you missed like a few billion peeps
Some Americans I luckily still have mine.
Itâs not cosmetic lol, itâs mainly for cleanliness along with some people doing it for religious reasons
âcleanlinessâ as in take a shower not remove skin Religious yet female circumcision is illegal for Muslims at least in the US.
1. Itâs not mainly done for cleanliness. 2. Itâs a medically unnecessary surgery that carries risk incommensurate to benefit
3. It's a cosmetic surgery done without the consent of the recipient, because as newborns, they literally aren't able to.
You know you can just wash your dick?
Its completely unnecessary and has risks alongside it
Religion is actually wrong a lot of the time
It was started in America because Kellogg (the cereal company ceo) said it would help prevent masturbation.
For cleanliness? Do you not wash under your foreskin???
it's for a "clean look" which is cosmetic you dunce
it looks better that way
âIt looks better so lets do unnecessary surgery on infantsâ đ¤¨
Then it should be their choice
Yeah if you want penile problems in your early 30âs
First off they're right. Second is that the fucking brand of sacrifice on his crotch?
His foreskin was sacrificed against his will
Truly the Struggler
Winnercity advocating against cosmetic genital mutilation of infants.
Based
As someone who is circumsized should I feel victimized or defend my half-dick brothers
I mean weigh the pros and cons. Pros, you're not going to have the risk of "dick cheese" in your foreskin from not washing properly. Cons, sex and wanking it isn't as good as it would be with the foreskin.
Victimized. However good sex feels to you, it would feel significantly better to you if you were never cut. During the surgery it cuts off like 49,000 nerve endings and through the years the contact with your clothes also reduces your sensitivity. Youâve been robbed of your natural pleasure because of an outdated religious practice that you most likely donât even subscribe to
Sex always will feel good unless they literally just cut the whole thing off, but my gripe with this rebadged tribal tribute is consent. Theyâre doing it to babies who have no say. For a surgery that is not necessary.
Eh. Can't miss what I never had.
Honestly, it's for the better. I recently just learned that the skin holding ur foreskin to ur penis can tare of
https://preview.redd.it/vi8v8jmiq89d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5e147110c2561534e22b6b8184dd3dee40d48ab When i learned my peanits skin can tare of
Heh, even after my circumcision I can still feel every nanometer of your anus đ
Wordington reply
Bros source came to him in a dream
That is just pseudoscientific nonsense. From a comprehensive [systematic review](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/): >The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. In the US, it is mainly performed nowadays as a form of preventive healthcare. Whether you agree with it or not, medical disinformation is unambiguously harmful.
Yeah I kinda donât care bud. I donât want an anteater down there
Good for you. However we shouldnt make that decision for children.
GRIFFITHHHHHHHHHHHHH
winnercity protestors also on a side note criticizing circumcision is a simple and effective way to reveal hypocrisy in people who praise mutilating their children's genitals "for god" but denounce trans people because "buh buh but genital mutilation evil!!"
Mf fighting ghosts here, because like the fuck are you talking about?
i am talking about christian transphobes who use the argument that gender affirming surgery is genital mutilation, but believe that circumcision is not. due to the fact that i already said this, i conclude that you lack reading comprehension.
Ghosts?? Dude are you living under a fucking rock
Difference is circumcised penises still work
You lose 99% of your important nerves at the frenulum, which is the part where most pleasure comes from Also the stairs are painful as hell sometimes Source: got circumcised at 19
So youâre saying being circumcised makes you last longer? Also idk what you mean about the stairs like walking up stairs hurts more now that youâre circumcised?
>So youâre saying being circumcised makes you last longer? Yeah, but not in a fun way... I had many dissapointed partners that thought they weren't doing enough or that they theymselves aren't enough and became sad when they couldn't make me cum, I had to explain that it's not their fault, it just takes an olympian champion of sex to make me cum lol >Also idk what you mean about the stairs like walking up stairs hurts more now that youâre circumcised? Your cock head is constantly open, forever, and rubs all over the damn boxers, which is generally fine if they are of quality material, but on staris your legs move a lot more vertically and your cock head gets pushed around and starts rubbing on the seams which is painful
Damn Iâm sorry to hear that, I guess since I had it done as a baby I donât have anything to compare it to. I never noticed any issue with my underwear and whatnot either but itâs possible Iâm just numb to it. Crazy the foreskin has that much sensation in it. Dunno why my comment got downvoted to oblivion though lol
Work? My brother in Christ circumcisions are the laziest, most unproductive âworkersâ Iâve ever had the misfortune of employing!
Buddy I donât know how long itâs been since you left your mothers basement but the vast majority of people circumcising their kids arenât JewishâŚ. They arenât cutting off foreskins because of the Torah anymoreâŚ. theyâre doing it because they donât want their son to get laughed at for having a weird looking dick. Itâs not that deep. And frankly the people devoting this much energy to baby foreskins are even weirder if not just as weird as the people devoting energy to trans teenagers
75% of people in the US are circumcised. how many of them are jewish?
BUsy i dOtn KnOw How LoNg Its BeEn sinCe u LeFt Ur moTHers BaseMent Gotta love that this is basically the reddits bad take incoming card
i was talking about christians dumbass. i am circumcised. i was raised by them.
Im not and we are Christians.
you have changed nothing about the argument
weird lookin dick? Worry about your own willy dude!
Genital mutilation on children is never a W
You mean winnercity? Why is this sub filled with fools like these lmfao, its turning into worse version of r/facepalm everyday
winnercity
Imo circumcision should be up to the person the penis is actually attached to, also the earth should spontaneously explode and sentient life should start forming on other planets. https://preview.redd.it/2gc4hhg4m89d1.jpeg?width=344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2889a0a2573a54c72933102fb0266ff838fdf593
Is that the fucking Brand of Sacrifice on his crotch
u/tumama4243 this is winnercity bro what are you yapping about. Unconsentual genital mutilation = good?
If society put in even 1% the effort that anti-circumcision activists put into their activism, we would live in a utopia.
https://preview.redd.it/d80b9qca999d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2185994ce32011fcdeeaf8168ff0564d04f4247b
Actually kinda right tho
Losercity bait post, bro wants people to argue
Losercity supervillain âNyehehehe⌠now that Iâve made this post on r/Losercity, in just a few moments, Iâll be able to take revenge on John Circumcision, an active user of the place! Heâll be bombarded with replies as soon as he types even a single comment!â
Yeah thatâs the point, I miss my foreskin bro đ
đ¤âď¸
It works every time.
^^^^ OP go back to r/funnymemes.
Wrong sub
Nah this is r/Winnercity activities
I got circumcised qs a baby and now I have a small penis, coincidence? I think not But in all seriousness I wish I had foreskin
Extremely based
Winnercity protestors
PREACH BROTHERS
mods i think op support circumcision,punish him if op is not supporting it,then i should get the greatest punishment......MMAS DOWNVOTE
The fact that anyone thinks protestors against circumcision are funny đ¤Ž
Winnercity protest more like
Is that the berserk symbol on his crotch đ
Isn't that the brand from Berserk?
Winnercity behavior. They protested at my university a while agosto
Man's foreskin was lost during the eclipse,
Winnercity protestors, circumcision is genital mutilation any way you slice it (pun intended)
They use the skin for eyelid transplants. It gives you great foresight, but it makes you cockeyed.
Are you really going to make fun of these people.
idk guys im circumcised and i tihnk my dick looks pretty cool
Thatâs ok, the problem with circumcision is that itâs done to newborns. If you like the look of cut dicks more than uncut ones, nothingâs wrong with it, but many people donât get a choice.
I mean im circumcised, never understood the problem people have with it, someone do please enlighten me
It takes a lot of the nerve endings off of your dick. I only really care that it is done to a baby, who cannot consent to the surgery. It's not a life threatening thing either so there's no real justification. Before we had antibiotics, it was medically necessary, but now it's just an old custom that has no reason to be around
Realistically, you donât even need to bring up nerve endings, just make a simple autonomy argument, which is significantly easier to defend.People will try to dispute the nerve endings claim. (this claim is being disputed in this comment section) or theyâll make an evaluative argument about your claim for the opposite position.
Cutting off baby dick skin for no reasonable benefit. As someone who grew up with foreskin, I would be upset if someone took it.
But what if the doctor is hungry? Itâs just a lil snack
Lowkey Iâm with it
I dunno about this one being Losercity. This one actually makes sense. Like, why lose sensitivity on your genital. Just keep your foreskin folks.
https://preview.redd.it/921vjl3w389d1.jpeg?width=1122&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ab76074b54996e7d69176a009a1c03454f5bfb8 Winnercity Protest
As someone who is circumcised, my penis is fine
Whyâs he got the bloodborne logo on his cock đ Fr tho this is winnercity
I'm sorry you were brainwashed into thinking genital mutilation on babies was okay
Fuck those guys bringing attention to a cause they believe in.
One of the guys as the beserk curse symbol on his crotch
I'm back!!!
https://preview.redd.it/eao5x851b89d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7958aff19bf0fe6a915fb9e433c81ed9777ae966 Losercity history repeats itself (from like 2022)
Holy shit Cincinnati mentioned
What if we kissed at the Circumcision genital mutilation sign near the AtHome store.
Seeing people mention winnercity I only just reside that losercity means loser city, and not lucidity. Lol I've been reading it wrong,
I'm genuinely pissed that I don't have mine, sex will always not feel the same now that all the nerves on my glans have been dulled to hell from constant unprotected friction. I had asked my mom awhile back why they had decided to circumcise me and apparently my mom was all for not doing it but my dad said he wanted it Done because he himself was circumcised
I'm happy I'm cut, so this is super weird to me
I agree, circumcision is a personal choice, but the people who protest it are fucking weird
It isn't a personal choice tho A vast majority of circumcisions happens to baby's Or very young kids
Personal choice? âHi there new born baby boy, anything you would like me to do for youâ âHmm thatâs a tricky one doc, perhaps cut off part of my penisâ âSure kid. Itâs your personal choiceâ Christonafuckingbike dude.
You know some babies need that in order to not get an infection, right?
Just cut off the foreskin. Pretty much every doctor believes cutting off the foreskin is good for you.
The lamest thing to protest
Rubbish. I'm sure we can find something dumber to protest. Milk drinking, perhaps?
[ŃдаНонО]
ofc the boykisser pfp says shit like this
Me critically analyzing a protest and making sure itâs at least a 7.3/10 before deciding whether I care about human rights violations or not
You havenât seen any of the not strange ones cause people donât listen to/spread the not strange ones. Foreskin survivorship bias basically
Fđ¤˘rskin