The CRT thing is a bizarre free speech thing. They argue that teachers' free speech means that the government can't dictate what is taught in classrooms. Which makes it pretty hard to establish any standards for classrooms at all.
The STD thing about being uncircumcised is completely overblown.
Best way not to get HIV? Don't be a faggot, and don't do dry sex (dry sex is when idiot African purposely dry out a woman's vagina using dirt, wool, etc. to make the vagina dry).
I've seen is people ranting about hygiene as if men don't know how to wash their dicks with soap
Same reason female feminists call men predators. Because the only ones who will associate them with feminists are.
As far as I'm concerned pro-circumcision people are crazy and have a lot of issues, end of, leave my dick alone.
They want to persuade themselves that their body is fine. I actually got a very long rant in a PM which was quite amusing a while back, with all sorts of crazy.
As far as I'm concerned pro-circumcision people are crazy and have a lot of issues, end of, leave my dick alone. there is no argument about hygiene, it's bullshit brainwashing.
You expect low IQ nimrods who don't know anything about the human body to be thinking about the future of their own and their partner's sexual health? Nope, sorry: got to get that nutt off 💦
Same reason circumcision is done. Shortens the act and reduces pleasure. Doesn't stop conception though which is all that matters to religious leaders.
yeah they'd cut our entire penis off if they could but then no more babies get born, they need a certain amount of slaves they just want us in constant torment
There was less on Wikipedia than I thought there'd be, such as an explanation. The only ones were that it makes the vagina feel tighter, which is not true, not in any good way, and that some people just like it, which isn't an explanation.
I'm also thinking that if it were remotely pleasurable, this wouldn't be unique to shithole Africa, cuz people have figured out every good way to fuck and a lot that are specific. The heirs of the Greeks have never heard of "dry sex".
There’s an argument to be made for hygienic uses of circumcision and doing it at a later year (post puberty) could cause larger health complications and scarring than doing it in infancy. I don’t mind leaving it at the discretion of the parents as it is really a fairly simple surgery whose complications are entirely due to the competency of the doctor.
This is really sad sophistry. Even if you “wash your dick” you statistically are more prone to penis cancer, uti’s, and stds because of how the hood traps liquid and bacteria. Removing hair follicles doesn’t reduce chances of cancer it raises it, same with fingernails and cancer/ infections.
that's like how they do remove women's breast's when they don't have breast cancer but they do have a possibility of getting it since it runs in the family. there's no such thing as foreskin cancer tho. the health benefits are made up, it's done to reduce pleasure of sex (and masturbation)
foisted onto us by a religion that most people aren't a part of.
Christian physicians emulated the Jewish practice of their own volition. Jews certainly deserve their share of blame for the stubbornness of the practice - they're the only ones who would claim a ban would be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to practice their religion - but it's not their fault that Christian men like Kellogg thought circumcision was responsible for Jews' good sexual health.
You are rationalizing barbarism that was foisted onto us by a religion that most people aren't a part of.
Jews didn’t invent circumcision, circumcision also was one of the biggest life extending surgeries men could due back in the day.
Don't fuck random strangers. STD problems solved.
Don’t fuck random strangers, still get UTI and die from sepsis. Congratulations
Having intact body parts increases cancer risks for those body parts? Shocker!
Is a circumcised penis not intact? Can it not function exactly the same? Hilarious the amp of stupid coming from you.
In that case, we should start proactively hacking off other body parts to decrease cancer risk.
You would be increasing alternative cancer risks in most cases, but someone who has probably never even studied basic biology won’t get that because they’re too busy blaming the Jews for a minor surgery that extended male life for centuries before antiseptics existed and still arguably does now.
If you don't have your colon, you can't get colon cancer. So let's start removing baby's colons.
Again conflating a minor surgery that removes a small portion of skin with an entire organ. Congratulations you are making the exact same conflation as the retarded liberal claiming circumcision is the same as a double mastectomy.
Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis. Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis.
Neither does removing one testicle. It does reduce the likelihood of cancer. That is exactly equivalent to your claim.
Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
It is not equivalent, but it's certainly comparable as the cutting up of the sexual parts of people. One wonders why people are so insistent on inflicting this on children.
Call me crazy, but I oppose cutting up the sexual organs of children.
Yeah, well you're more prone to breast cancer if you keep your boobs too. You wouldn't happen to be circumcised, would you?
Before you call this "sad sophistry," first realize that your argument amounts to "even if you wash <body part>, you still get <body part-specific hygiene and health issues>." People comparing testicles or hair follicles to foreskin in this situation are giving you perfect analogies based on your argument, they're not saying the body parts are equivalent in importance or magnitude.
I’m sorry, do circumcised people not have penises or are you making a stupid comparison? removing a small amount of epithelial tissue is not the same as removing an entire organ…
I'm willing to bet you don't know that some infections associated with foreskin are literally named specifically for the foreskin. I didn't say anything about whole penises.
Exactly zero people are arguing degree or magnitude here. I did not say small piece of skin = entire organ. Again, me and others here are analogizing your poor argument regarding tissue removal for the sake of limiting health and hygiene problems associated with that tissue. Removing foreskin for hygiene is akin to removing fingernails for hygiene. It's 100% comparable.
If men weren't meant to have a foreskin, it wouldn't be there in nature. Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
I see circumcision as one of the first body modifications by humans who think they "know better" than nature. Given science's poor track record in deciding what is important and what isn't on the human body I wouldn't trust it.
It’s been proven to date back to 6000bc with evidence as far back as 15000bc.
Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
This is patently false, while Judaism heavily utilizes the practice, Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics. England and America started using it as a preventative measure of stds mid 19th century and was largely pushed by devout Christian doctors. One of the more famous being Dr. Kellogg who founded the company of the same name.
Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics.
Citation needed, citation needed.
Kellogg pushed it to prevent boys from masturbating. Some boys were castrated in the 19th century because they did it too much. I do like Victorianism, but this is not exactly an attractive part of the culture.
Yeah, thats why the Nazis totally didn't use circumcision as a quick way to identify Jewish men pretending to be gentiles, because everyone was doing it in 1940's Europe. Right?
AntonioOfVenice already covered the religious wackos pushing it in the United States.
The first mention of it in Encyclopedia Britannica as a medical practice and not simply a Jewish and Islamic religious custom was the 1910 edition.
To portray circumcision as common among everyday Christian peoples prior to the 20th century is simply revisionist history. And no, I don't care that Jews and Muzzies were doing it for centuries.
I knew a guy who got it done at 11 after he moved to the US and said he had to sit in a bathtub for a week because the air hurt. I see both sides on this issue but the people making this comparison are utterly insane and know they are wrong.
For the ones who gaslight (non Zionists) their gaslighting is 100% cope. Having brought this up some of them get visibly disturbed while they simultaneously claim its no big deal and keeps men from being rapists.
I think part of the gaslighting effort against the 'uncircumcised' is so that circumcised guys don't think about what's been done to them and question it.
That's how its always been. I remember back in my undergrad we had a day in class about it, and one of the top reasons for it (and almost always the answer from women) was "so it looks like dad" or "so I don't have to explain why dad is different." Its all sunken cost.
The whole reason such a debate even came up in a Psyche class is because its a great example of how trauma can literally change your brain's physical form, and you don't even need to be able to remember it for that to effect you.
Yeah children heal faster. But adults have a choice not to do it. The question is really whether you want it done at all and to what degree you're going to allow parents to make that choice for their own children. Since I don't see it as serious mutilation, more like getting ears pierced, it is not within me to outlaw other people's choice on this.
This is why there's no cure. It's a very wilfull and deliberate rejection of reality in front of them with a heaping coating of smug self superiority on top of it.
It's not enough that they're wrong, they have to revel in the delight of just how wrong they can be
Even worse, that one user seems to think that you not wanting this practiced on children is somehow antithetical to you also not wanting "sex change" surgeries on children. You've explicitly stated both are a consent issue where children can't meaningfully consent, which seems perfectly consistent to me. His understanding makes zero fucking sense.
If you read trannie comments on Twitter they always deny things that are obviously and proveably happening. This fag was just following those marching orders, but was too dumb to notice the obvious logical contradiction in his statement
Weighing in on this topic as someone who actually went through that, the people mourning the loss of their foreskins are largely overreacting. The people defending circumcising infants though, those fuckers need to be lined up against the wall and shot.
Lol have at it nose lovers. Religious nuttery will be your downfall. And this leftist isn't even going far enough because tradcucks states STILL don't have a problem with male genital mutilation. Their troon bans have loopholes for it.
I have no problem with Jews, I am a "tradcuck", and I think genital mutilation of anyone should be banned. Or was this just an attempt to push a line against Jews and "tradcucks"?
People are very devoted to the idea that circumcision is only a Jew thing. Which, they certainly have some fucked rituals with it but its almost completely divorced from both of those things in the West for many decades.
Also, people who hate "tradcucks" feel the need to push that into every topic ever. Somehow every single bad thing in existence, including one's they make up, are the fault of tradcucks.
It's true that the fact that they live in enough comfort to bash "tradcucks" is the fault of "tradcucks". They wouldn't be such entitled brats if they lived in a Chicago-tier hellhole.
There is a special sort of brazen mix of lies, denials confusingly mixed with "it's a good thing" and outright bullshit with which tranny groomers express themselves.
It's still up, but here are some archives just in case.
“Kids don't get surgery or puberty blockers. Unless you're talking circumcision, which you never had a problem with until now (and is for cis folk).
So it would be that republicans were willing to go to war and die because they stopped wanting to use pronouns correctly” link - archive.org - archive.today
Well, if children do not get puberty blockers and surgery a ban wouldn't be a problem. Let's do it.
That's what is so ridiculous about this. Simultaneously it isn't happening but these useless bans on nothing are also killing "trans kids."
"It's not happening but it's occurring and it's a good thing but you're a nut for saying it's happening and we need it to happen more"
same shit with the anti-groomer laws.
if they're not grooming, then they should have no problem with bans on grooming.
same with CRT in high schools. ok to ban it right?
yup, they said it wasn't happening, no loss
The CRT thing is a bizarre free speech thing. They argue that teachers' free speech means that the government can't dictate what is taught in classrooms. Which makes it pretty hard to establish any standards for classrooms at all.
i didn't think they were saying that. like a math teacher has free speech but shouldn't be teaching history, just not the class for that.
Actually, I do have a problem with semite rituals.
You cannot change your sex. You will never be a woman.
Circumcision= double mastectomy?
At this level of logic freezing a mole is the same as a removing a kidney…
The STD thing about being uncircumcised is completely overblown.
Best way not to get HIV? Don't be a faggot, and don't do dry sex (dry sex is when idiot African purposely dry out a woman's vagina using dirt, wool, etc. to make the vagina dry).
People invested in dick mutilation, are very invested. Don't sweat it, and see them for what they are.
Same reason female feminists call men predators. Because the only ones who will associate them with feminists are.
They want to persuade themselves that their body is fine. I actually got a very long rant in a PM which was quite amusing a while back, with all sorts of crazy.
Every pro-circumcision argument is made by working backwards.
Rather than deciding its worth it because X or Z reason, they know its "worth it" and just start pulling every reason they think works to prove it.
Oy vey, that's islamophobic and antisemitic!
Wait... why the hell would anyone want to be dry? That sounds painful as hell for everyone involved.
You expect low IQ nimrods who don't know anything about the human body to be thinking about the future of their own and their partner's sexual health? Nope, sorry: got to get that nutt off 💦
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sex
Suriname too:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874107005934#:~:text=In%20many%20African%20cultures%2C%20plants,for%20the%20man%20during%20intercourse.
Same reason circumcision is done. Shortens the act and reduces pleasure. Doesn't stop conception though which is all that matters to religious leaders.
yeah they'd cut our entire penis off if they could but then no more babies get born, they need a certain amount of slaves they just want us in constant torment
Africans are dumber than I thought
I didn't think it was possible, but here we are.
There was less on Wikipedia than I thought there'd be, such as an explanation. The only ones were that it makes the vagina feel tighter, which is not true, not in any good way, and that some people just like it, which isn't an explanation.
I'm also thinking that if it were remotely pleasurable, this wouldn't be unique to shithole Africa, cuz people have figured out every good way to fuck and a lot that are specific. The heirs of the Greeks have never heard of "dry sex".
Why???
There’s an argument to be made for hygienic uses of circumcision and doing it at a later year (post puberty) could cause larger health complications and scarring than doing it in infancy. I don’t mind leaving it at the discretion of the parents as it is really a fairly simple surgery whose complications are entirely due to the competency of the doctor.
This is really sad sophistry. Even if you “wash your dick” you statistically are more prone to penis cancer, uti’s, and stds because of how the hood traps liquid and bacteria. Removing hair follicles doesn’t reduce chances of cancer it raises it, same with fingernails and cancer/ infections.
Coming from people whose arguments are exact copy pastes of the people pushing troon surgeries this is just delightful.
It’s gaslighting to show centuries of medical studies…
Coming from the side of “removing a small piece of epithelial tissue is the same as cutting of the entire penis”
that's like how they do remove women's breast's when they don't have breast cancer but they do have a possibility of getting it since it runs in the family. there's no such thing as foreskin cancer tho. the health benefits are made up, it's done to reduce pleasure of sex (and masturbation)
Christian physicians emulated the Jewish practice of their own volition. Jews certainly deserve their share of blame for the stubbornness of the practice - they're the only ones who would claim a ban would be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to practice their religion - but it's not their fault that Christian men like Kellogg thought circumcision was responsible for Jews' good sexual health.
Jews didn’t invent circumcision, circumcision also was one of the biggest life extending surgeries men could due back in the day.
Don’t fuck random strangers, still get UTI and die from sepsis. Congratulations
Is a circumcised penis not intact? Can it not function exactly the same? Hilarious the amp of stupid coming from you.
You would be increasing alternative cancer risks in most cases, but someone who has probably never even studied basic biology won’t get that because they’re too busy blaming the Jews for a minor surgery that extended male life for centuries before antiseptics existed and still arguably does now.
Again conflating a minor surgery that removes a small portion of skin with an entire organ. Congratulations you are making the exact same conflation as the retarded liberal claiming circumcision is the same as a double mastectomy.
No, it is mutilated.
Lmao so fucking what retard, it's an important part of your sexual anatomy. Why don't we just remove the clitoris, it's pointless and looks ugly.
Simps like you shit bricks over the idea of that tho, because you're pussy whipped.
No it’s really not, the only prominence of the hood is to create a seal during orgasm which has never shown to increase odds of conception
There’s no medical benefits to removing the clitoris and a known increased risk to cancer.
Read a medical study princess
medical studies are owned by jews
Men with two balls are statistically more prone to testicular cancer.
Now, now, no need to run to get the kitchen knife.
Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis. Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
Neither does removing one testicle. It does reduce the likelihood of cancer. That is exactly equivalent to your claim.
It is not equivalent, but it's certainly comparable as the cutting up of the sexual parts of people. One wonders why people are so insistent on inflicting this on children.
Call me crazy, but I oppose cutting up the sexual organs of children.
Yeah, well you're more prone to breast cancer if you keep your boobs too. You wouldn't happen to be circumcised, would you?
Before you call this "sad sophistry," first realize that your argument amounts to "even if you wash <body part>, you still get <body part-specific hygiene and health issues>." People comparing testicles or hair follicles to foreskin in this situation are giving you perfect analogies based on your argument, they're not saying the body parts are equivalent in importance or magnitude.
I’m sorry, do circumcised people not have penises or are you making a stupid comparison? removing a small amount of epithelial tissue is not the same as removing an entire organ…
I'm willing to bet you don't know that some infections associated with foreskin are literally named specifically for the foreskin. I didn't say anything about whole penises.
Exactly zero people are arguing degree or magnitude here. I did not say small piece of skin = entire organ. Again, me and others here are analogizing your poor argument regarding tissue removal for the sake of limiting health and hygiene problems associated with that tissue. Removing foreskin for hygiene is akin to removing fingernails for hygiene. It's 100% comparable.
Hugs: they're not saying the body parts are equivalent
You: is not the same
...that's what he just said.
If men weren't meant to have a foreskin, it wouldn't be there in nature. Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
I see circumcision as one of the first body modifications by humans who think they "know better" than nature. Given science's poor track record in deciding what is important and what isn't on the human body I wouldn't trust it.
It’s been proven to date back to 6000bc with evidence as far back as 15000bc.
This is patently false, while Judaism heavily utilizes the practice, Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics. England and America started using it as a preventative measure of stds mid 19th century and was largely pushed by devout Christian doctors. One of the more famous being Dr. Kellogg who founded the company of the same name.
Citation needed, citation needed.
Kellogg pushed it to prevent boys from masturbating. Some boys were castrated in the 19th century because they did it too much. I do like Victorianism, but this is not exactly an attractive part of the culture.
Yeah, thats why the Nazis totally didn't use circumcision as a quick way to identify Jewish men pretending to be gentiles, because everyone was doing it in 1940's Europe. Right?
In Islamic-ruled lands, a synonym for this sick practice is 'Islamized'.
Conflates Europe with England and America. Do you need a map?
What continent is England considered a part of?
AntonioOfVenice already covered the religious wackos pushing it in the United States.
The first mention of it in Encyclopedia Britannica as a medical practice and not simply a Jewish and Islamic religious custom was the 1910 edition.
To portray circumcision as common among everyday Christian peoples prior to the 20th century is simply revisionist history. And no, I don't care that Jews and Muzzies were doing it for centuries.
I knew a guy who got it done at 11 after he moved to the US and said he had to sit in a bathtub for a week because the air hurt. I see both sides on this issue but the people making this comparison are utterly insane and know they are wrong.
It hurts infants as well. Just as much.
Great way to start life, eh?
For the ones who gaslight (non Zionists) their gaslighting is 100% cope. Having brought this up some of them get visibly disturbed while they simultaneously claim its no big deal and keeps men from being rapists.
That's how its always been. I remember back in my undergrad we had a day in class about it, and one of the top reasons for it (and almost always the answer from women) was "so it looks like dad" or "so I don't have to explain why dad is different." Its all sunken cost.
The whole reason such a debate even came up in a Psyche class is because its a great example of how trauma can literally change your brain's physical form, and you don't even need to be able to remember it for that to effect you.
Yeah children heal faster. But adults have a choice not to do it. The question is really whether you want it done at all and to what degree you're going to allow parents to make that choice for their own children. Since I don't see it as serious mutilation, more like getting ears pierced, it is not within me to outlaw other people's choice on this.
Its a lot worse than ear piercing. Its removing a functional organ. Look up what the purpose of the foreskin is.
why do you believe that fake news
2 rabbis downvoted.
The bolsheviks can never keep a story straight. Half say it's not happening and the other half say it is happening and that's a good thing.
This is why there's no cure. It's a very wilfull and deliberate rejection of reality in front of them with a heaping coating of smug self superiority on top of it.
It's not enough that they're wrong, they have to revel in the delight of just how wrong they can be
I actually oppose circumcision too. Every purported benefit is either BS or can be obtained without circumcising. Quite often both.
Even worse, that one user seems to think that you not wanting this practiced on children is somehow antithetical to you also not wanting "sex change" surgeries on children. You've explicitly stated both are a consent issue where children can't meaningfully consent, which seems perfectly consistent to me. His understanding makes zero fucking sense.
If you read trannie comments on Twitter they always deny things that are obviously and proveably happening. This fag was just following those marching orders, but was too dumb to notice the obvious logical contradiction in his statement
The world is so fucking gay.
Pedo Inc. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🍕
Ban male circumcision, only extreme phimosis requires surgical intervention.
Weighing in on this topic as someone who actually went through that, the people mourning the loss of their foreskins are largely overreacting. The people defending circumcising infants though, those fuckers need to be lined up against the wall and shot.
Based (but not endorsing, pls no bully mods).
i endorse it fully.
Lol have at it nose lovers. Religious nuttery will be your downfall. And this leftist isn't even going far enough because tradcucks states STILL don't have a problem with male genital mutilation. Their troon bans have loopholes for it.
I have no problem with Jews, I am a "tradcuck", and I think genital mutilation of anyone should be banned. Or was this just an attempt to push a line against Jews and "tradcucks"?
People are very devoted to the idea that circumcision is only a Jew thing. Which, they certainly have some fucked rituals with it but its almost completely divorced from both of those things in the West for many decades.
Also, people who hate "tradcucks" feel the need to push that into every topic ever. Somehow every single bad thing in existence, including one's they make up, are the fault of tradcucks.
It's true that the fact that they live in enough comfort to bash "tradcucks" is the fault of "tradcucks". They wouldn't be such entitled brats if they lived in a Chicago-tier hellhole.
Some is, some isn't. Because their idea of "tradcuck" is "anyone who isn't woke, but disagrees with my radical, destructive mindset."
Its all just whining that some people don't want to line niggers and Jews up and shoot them, then beat women into sex slavery.
and this is making more question circumcision
There is a special sort of brazen mix of lies, denials confusingly mixed with "it's a good thing" and outright bullshit with which tranny groomers express themselves.
How does this retarded birdtweet feedback thing work? They just have a mini twitter without as many bots and take the most upvoted comments from that?
It appears to have been removed.
It's still up, but here are some archives just in case.
Clarification, the community notes seem to have been removed.
Great to have a daily reminder these people are disingenuous lying animals and deserve to die.