Are you saying removal of the tonsils is bad in children? How about the appendix? What about surgical removal of clitoromegaly or other non functional sex organs at birth?
Removing tonsils or an appendix serves a medical purpose if they become inflamed. Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis. First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them. Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then. The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
And if you don’t receive anal penetration you aren’t enjoying “sex” as much as a man who is, as the prostate is far more sensitive than the foreskin.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
You say that like it changes something.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Since we're throwing around pedophile accusations with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Right… the people demanding more pleasure from sex with no other health benefits are the “normal” ones. Are you going to start getting pegged in the ass because that’s even more sensitive and produces a better orgasm?
The foreskin isn’t a functional part of the penis, it’s the same as arguing that you should get fucked in the ass because the prostate is more sensitive than the foreskin…
Really? Why do we have an appendix/ caecum still if we don’t use it anymore? Every mammal has a foreskin, that doesn’t make it vital or necessary for humans, the same as the appendix or caecum.
It really is and the lack of it is the entire reason why USA media include so much lubricant in sex scenes. Men with a foreskin don't need lube to masturbate because the entire purpose of the foreskin is to facilitate motion.
Are you saying removal of the tonsils is bad in children? How about the appendix? What about surgical removal of clitoromegaly or other non functional sex organs at birth?
Removing tonsils or an appendix serves a medical purpose if they become inflamed. Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis. First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them. Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then. The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
And if you don’t receive anal penetration you aren’t enjoying “sex” as much as a man who is, as the prostate is far more sensitive than the foreskin.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
You say that like it changes something.
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Right… the people demanding more pleasure from sex with no other health benefits are the “normal” ones. Are you going to start getting pegged in the ass because that’s even more sensitive and produces a better orgasm?
Notice he said "functional" and you reply with occasionally medically necessary surgeries of things that aren't functioning.
I gotta say, I'm disappointed. Defending Jewish pedo-sadism is the last take I excepted from you.
The foreskin isn’t a functional part of the penis, it’s the same as arguing that you should get fucked in the ass because the prostate is more sensitive than the foreskin…
if it doesn't do anything, why did we evolve it? biology isn't rich enough to evolve random bullshit for no reason.
Really? Why do we have an appendix/ caecum still if we don’t use it anymore? Every mammal has a foreskin, that doesn’t make it vital or necessary for humans, the same as the appendix or caecum.
It really is and the lack of it is the entire reason why USA media include so much lubricant in sex scenes. Men with a foreskin don't need lube to masturbate because the entire purpose of the foreskin is to facilitate motion.