Candace Owens delivering the truth today
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (120)
sorted by:
they'll destroy her now that she's spoken against the ritual.
Whose they?
for once, actually the jews. they did the same thing to iceland.
It's the THEYS of this world that try to control us.
Muslims in beta
JEWS
Uniquely American in the Christian world. Don't know how it happened but I assume it's because our medical system was (and is) criminally insane. "Get circumcised. It's healthy. Listen to the experts." then someone smugly posts on 1920s twitter a photoshopped headstone that says "Did his own research. Died of a cock infection." My sons aren't circumcised and neither am I, and for the record my mother was the one that insisted on not doing it.
My wife and I had to watch out because despite telling them up front multiple times "no circumcision" they came to the room started wheeling them out, we asked why, and the nurse said "for their circ." And we said, "no." This happened TWO more times. As I said criminally insane.
I would recommend home births to anyone if possible. Yeah, you're probably in marginally more medical peril but you'll be safe from foreskin hungry nurses.
Yep. I have multiple boys, and in all cases, the hospital folks were just fucking champing at the bit to do the circumcision. It was ridiculous. We had to say no multiple times.
I feel like we were lucky to get them out of their intact considering they would just roll them out without saying why.
I found it incredibly difficult to get a specific explanation of why circumcision prevented the spread of STD's, explicitly HIV. It's an issue in Africa where they push circumcision quite heavily, even on adults, in order to combat AIDS, and it involved all the same arguments that you would normally hear in the US about cleanliness (where at least in Africa, this makes much more sense).
It actually took me a while for someone to finally talk about the actual biological and virological mechanism (especially considering how small the virus is, and we're still assuming both parties are engaging in sexual intercourse anyway), rather than just pointing at a statistic and saying "but probability go down?"
It's been a while, but as I recall, it had something to do with the fact that the exposed area under the head of the penis actually has pores that emit smegma, and the smegma actually allows the HIV virus to be active longer, and enter in through those pores, even after sexual intercourse has already ended. So the issue is that basically, a circumcision might reduce smegma buildup and also allow your dick to basically dry out and the virus will be less likely to survive with less moist and beneficial habitat. That is why it can reduce HIV transmission.
However, all of that was not common even readily available knowledge. For the most part, people are just pointing at a statistic and saying "number go down", without understanding why.
I remember going down the same rabbit hole.
From what I remember it was because the head of the glans is sensitive and vulnerable to friction micro wounds.
If it's circumcised it thickens due to regular friction and becomes tougher. Basically turning head of your dick into a callus.
I believe it was also pushed by the Kellog guy as an anti masturbation aid but I'm not sure how true that is.
I wasn't sure about the first part, but the last part about Kellog is correct.
The study is bunk anyway. It is a percent of a percentage (garbage stats). So there is a +1% difference, but that accounts for a fifty% difference from the original infection rate. And the study doesn't even account for the fact that the circumcised group was recently circumcised, meaning they were not having sex to begin with. Furthermore it was done when the group didn't even have decent access to soap and water. It is complete horseshit no matter how you look at it. Circumcision was pushed in america to curb male sexuality 100%. Where is impy's take in this?
I don't think this is one study, I think this was multiple studies in Africa which claimed around a 15% improvement in people not getting AIDS.
I don't think that's totally right. I think you mean smegma becomes too much when you don't bathe, not that it just doesn't form. It would be naturally emitted from those pores.
redditor writing fanfics. yeah, ze womens go wild for his magical peeenis. it sounds like r/trannystories
Yeah, that makes more sense.
You're in pretty significant peril with hospital births anyway. The whole system is a funnel to the OR. Find a midwife center near a hospital. Midwives don't view their place of work as a chopshop.
Nurses are hungry for foreskin? In my experience, women prefer clipped guys to non clipped. "Just teach them to keep it clean" is hilarious. We are talking about boys right? Skid marks in their undies, dirty rooms, BO, etc. Yeah, they will keep that thing clean lol.
I'd rather give him the belt for being a nasty shit, rather than cutting off part of his dick.
Cope.
Her husband thought: what the hell did I get myself into?
Good thing CO had the good sense to change her mind.
It IS an Abrahamic tradition, and a REALLY big religious deal for Muslims and Jews. Converts to Judaism and Islam both must get circumcised.
Christians historically did not circumcise. There's absolutely no Christian requirement for circumcision. As another poster said, the only reason Americans circumsize today is because of the belief that it would stop masturbation. MIssion accompished, men.
It's a Big Lube conspiracy.
Which is the same reason the Jews started doing it in the first place.
then it was a based endgoal, even if a bad way to go about it. if we would tone down on the masturbation and porn, society would be a lot better these days.
I agree with you to an extent.
I don't think we want to go full Catholic celibacy, masturbation is a sin, etc. That's too far. Almost everybody masturbates. As long as it's not out of control, I don't think it's a problem.
Obessive and accelerating porn usage, fapping to the exclusion of real relationships...that's getting to be too much.
The world would be better if everyone could just follow a bit of moderation.
Frankly, I think it started exactly as a tribal thing, a sure-fire way of being able to tell whether or not a guy was Jewish or not (I guess with women it didn't matter?) ... that, of course, wound up biting them in the ass in WW2. Note that the practice of non-Jewish circumcision didn't become popular in North America until AFTER WW2. I do believe it was sold to new mothers as something that should be done to boys for "health reasons" exactly for to hide who is Jew and who is not, so that "drop yer pants" can't work the next time they become unpopular.
I was going to say that her statement isn't correct, because Israel (and probably other countries in the middle east) also has a high rate of circumcision due to Judaism (or to be more general, as you put it, Abrahamic tradition.)
Yeah, but those are Jews and Muslims, and probably not Christians. The thing is, the people doing it in the USA are the non-Jewish/Muslims as well.
Was it that hard back then? Jump in the Jordan and helicopter it for a minute and you're good to go.
Without soap? Probably.
It was mostly a way to set the jews apart as spiritually clean than physically though.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
And he just magically converted a whole nation to his insanity? He had help.
Its conceivable if he used his brands to do so. But how could one man own a nationwide cereal chain? Its time to call mythbusters imo.
I had "the talk" with my brother when he and his wife were expecting.
Apparently all it took to convince his wife was a nurse handing her a shitty 5th generation photocopy of some pro-circumcision handout that looked like it came out of the 60s and burying the consent form in the stack of papers she had to sign.
I felt like I failed my nephew, but, really, in the end, it was them that failed him, programmed by the system to just do what they say.
Next time let them know the procedure can kill if/when done wrong. Problems range from scarring to the point it can look like STDs to the general public, to entire loss of the penis, to blood loss leading to death. That's the kind of person your sister in law chose to be through ignorance or otherwise, someone who potentially put the life of her newborn at risk because she's likely a shitty person and hypocrite when it comes to these things, as Stonetoss repeatedly highlights:
https://i2.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/consent-and-circumcision-comic1.png?fit=625%2C605
https://i1.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/my-body-my-choice-comic.png?fit=1500%2C500
https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/baby-gender-circumcision-comic.png?fit=1500%2C500
https://i2.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/medicine-and-science-political-cartoon.png?fit=1500%2C500
I’ll just leave this here
Genital mutilation of both sexes is rampant in the middle East and Africa. What a shame that Americans are as backwards as them in that regard
Women only care about men's issues when it personally effects them, News at 11. 90% chance if the husband hadn't brought it up, she wouldn't have even blinked and done it without a single question about "hey why is cutting a chunk of flesh off something we do, doc I'm curious."
But I suppose now that she has found out how easy the grift is, she will expand into every facet of it.
I just assumed it was the normal thing to do
Yep. I had no idea either. I mean, growing up in America, it's just what you see. Wife and I chose not to circumcize our boys, and I'm very glad.
Looks like shes gonna make the ADLS antisemite of the year again
It's done to the goyim to help the chosenites blend in.
it also gives you 2% faster speeds for your biking time trials
theres a REASON lance armstrong was the fastest, and its not just because he was missing a nut
I was making this post as a reply but it's probably generally useful for anyone on the fence.
Circumcision is a moral crime. People who have circumcisions or have only interacted with circumcised penises probably do not really know how a normal penis actually works, or how intercourse is actually meant to work. With both types of penis the skin of the penis is anchored to the same points but a circumcision removes an extra three or so inches of skin (the foreskin is folded over itself so its length is twice what it appears). This means the skin of a natural penis can stay almost stationary in your partner for the full length of a thrust. This has multiple benefits, it is more stimulating for both participants because the skin exaggerates texture; it preserves natural lubrication because you are pulling three inches less skin into the open air with each thrust (this becomes more important with age); and it produces less friction which sounds bad but friction and stimulation are not the same thing so it extends sex and makes sex more comfortable for both partners without sacrificing stimulation (and if this seems unlikely consider it is essentially the same function lubrication serves and no one has ever complained about a vagina being too wet).
Circumcision is every bit as reprehensible as FGM and for the same reasons; the only difference is a matter of degrees.
Frankly I'm more surprised that she was shocked to learn that. It's not even done to all American boys. I remember as a kid seeing some really little kid running around naked at the pool and laughing at him with a friend who pointed and yelled "that kid's not circumcised". Then I asked my mother what that means and she explained and said some parents get it done to their babies and some don't. End of lesson. Does this kind of experience not happen to all kids growing up? There's even a Seinfeld episode about cut vs. uncut guys. How did Candace grow up not knowing this? Maybe it's a guy thing.
I'm going to guess that her husband is not cut.
Circumcision isn't a moral crime. It's no big deal.
I feel much more strongly about the principle of involuntary, elective medical practices now than, oh, say, 22 months ago.
I don't know how it works wherever you are, but parents are supposed to make the choice for their kids.
There's this ethical concept of "informed consent," which hospitals do not operate under. A nurse rushing off with your newborn son to perform what is functionally cosmetic surgery because you signed a catch-all release to treat is ethically, if not legally, involuntary.
That sounds wrong and it would be up to responsible parents' competence to avoid. This doesn't make circumcision itself a moral crime, which is my point.
That is wrong indeed, and up to the parents' competence to stop before it happens.
Mandatory vaccination isn't a moral crime. It's no big deal.
Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children. You're making an unfair point.
It is a decision that affects the child their entire life. FUCK NO. There are limits. If a parent wanted to remove a child's pinkie no doctor would ever do it and they'd probably get put on an involuntary mental health hold. Yes a parent should make medical decisions for their child but they are a steward until the child becomes an adult and circumcising your child is being a bad steward. I made this post https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/141FJrTyCM/x/c/4OTNCSUj92V
Many medical decisions affect a person their entire life. Removing a pinkie isn't the same as circumcision. Your arguments related to sex may or may not be true, but I'd need more than your good word to believe circumcision hinders sex somehow. For as long as loss of function isn't proven, the wisdom inherent in tradition will imperate, and so it's not a moral crime.
I explained the mechanics of it clearly. I don't know how one would go about "proving" it and that makes you sound like a deboonker. But since I can immobilize my foreskin and get a pretty good idea of the mechanics of a circumcised penis (something you'd only do if you need to get off faster because you only paid for the half hour) and you cannot do the opposite it would be wise to at least take me seriously in which case it would be prudent to not circumcise. I don't think Chesterton's Fence applies here as circumcision among Christians is a recent and geographically isolated innovation.
e: And think about this, you do have to take my word for it. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm lying. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW. You can't know. You can't know how human intercourse actually works. Isn't that fucked up? Unless you are 100% sure I am lying that should make you rethink your position.
Circumcised people have sex without issue. Regardless of the supersession of the old law, God would not have taught an immoral ritual, and so circumcision cannot be immoral.
Without issue but not mechanically like normal people (and I would argue that later life it can cause issues).
Jews are born into that covenant; gentiles are not. God can command that someone and all their descendants be circumcised in the same way he can kill; it does not make it moral for a human to do the same. Either you believe in the God of Abraham, in which case it is moral for them to circumcise their sons but that doesn't mean it is moral for you to do the same, or you don't believe in the God of Abraham in which case it is immoral in both cases. There isn't a case where it is moral for a gentile to circumcise their child.
It can cause severe discolouration due to scar tissue, result in amputations when botched slightly, and flat out kill when botched severely due to blood loss. Tell that to families of newborns it's "no big deal" and see how many don't cave your skull in.
The botched argument isn't really one though. You can make the same claim about brain surgery where if it's botched slightly then you just die. lol
This argument would make sense if they gave every newborn brain surgery because for every 100 brain surgeries it would prevent one baby from getting an infection that generally isn't dangerous.
By itself the arguement isn't worth anything, but I'm sorry you're brain is too small to see that. ;( Ban haircuts because haircuts are a cosmetic procedure done through tradition, but there's a risk of your ear getting cut
lol if your parent gives you a bad haircut you live with it a few months tops. if your parent gives you a bad dickcut you live with it your entire life.
I'd rather not, but I still maintain that circumcision isn't immoral.
You're a eunuch saying being dickless is no big deal. You have no idea what was taken from you.
"Most women prefer eunuchs and besides it's so much easier to keep clean."
Being circumcised isn't the same as having no dick.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/141FJrTyCM/x/c/4OTNCSUj92V
It's the same as having an inferior dick. Which isn't your fault, but if you have male children you have to stop the cycle.
im dikless greg, can you milk me?
FGM isn't a moral crime. It's no big deal.
Oh wait, now it suddenly sounds retarded doesn't it?
My mom’s (((Doctor))) had my foreskin turned into a leather jacket.
If I have a daughter, I would tell her what labiaplasty is and tell her she should only get it if she chaffs.
You are probably going to have to teach your kid how to clean the foreskin, which was one of the main reasons the procedure got popular along with Kellogg, and I suggest that the foreskin be modified to expose the urethra at full rest.
Which takes less time than it does to write this post.
I can't speak for everyone but after puberty the urinary meatus IS fully exposed when flaccid. Before the foreskin naturally retracts you don't need to clean it and after it retracts cleaning it is easy. The whole cleaning issue is a big nothing that only circumcised people seem to care about; literally no one with a foreskin is worried about keeping it clean because you literally just retract it while you are washing your penis.
Can confirm, unless you are really small, or cold, this is how it works. TMI, but a quarter of my head is always exposed. The cope of those who have been mutilated is sad to see.
good question, however one has to ask, do your ears spread any stds or any other serious diseases from intimate contact?