Foreskin Man Outrages Jewish Community

Sorry, no dice. We can have plenty of back and forth about the fundamental "correctness" of male circumcision, but depicting a Jewish Rabbi as a evil guy doing the bidding of an entire religion by stealing infants penis skin is both anti-semitic and beyond the pale. It's an undeniable fact that at least in developing countries, circumcision has cut HIV infections down by anywhere between 30 to 60% depending on the study you look at. Extrapolating that to developed countries and while you won't have that same percentage as result, you will still be saving lives.

There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, but generally, 95% of society seems to be OK with however their penis was treated after birth. And comparing this to female genital mutilation is INSANE. Female genital mutilation is a procedure specifically designed to oppress females by destroying their ability to have any feeling during sexual intercourse so they can't "compare" how men do in bed, leading to them not cheating on the guy they were married to, most likely at an age that would get people convicted for child rape in first world countries. While the fact remains that male circumcision cuts back on some feeling in the penis, I personally don't have too many complaints and I don't know too many people who do (and considering I'm gay, I have a bit of insight on the subject). Get real folks.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


''The ladies love it''? thats what most men who are cut say but the truth is that woman don't like it one bit.

Here is a map of circumcision rates around the world. As you can see, majority of developed world is not circumcised, while it is typical for undeveloped third world:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Control freaks always want to control other peoples lives.

Are you aware that this argument can be just as well used to argue against circumcision? The parents are the control freaks.

Well, I am uncut and cannot imagine ever choosing to be cut. I have been with American women whom have told me that most US men are cut and how strange it was to be with an uncut man.

I think that I would have to say that, although there is really nothing wrong with the fact that a male is cut, he should however, not be cut until he is of the age when he can make the choice. Afterall, it is his body.

I think that if I had been cut as an infant and therefore had the right to choose taken away, I would be resentful toward my parents.

Because part of my penis was cut off, I have felt murderous rage toward the people responsible, and I have felt suicidally depressed.

It is amazing how such a small piece of skin can hold so much meaning. I'm okay now, but I still get a little sad when I think about it.

Its a surprise that young boys are aloud to have this done to them without consent. They should be able to reach an age where they can choose for them self. I wonder what these guys would think if people in the civilized world bound their babys heads to make them ilongated? or some other barbaric ritual like that.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


The only thing comparable to a male circumcision for females, would be the removal of the clitoral hood. Look that up and think it over.

reply to post by ThePeopleParty


I could not agree with you more.

Originally posted by amazed
Because male circumcision, which is NOTHING compared to female genitalia mutilation...

You're falling into the trap of attempting to argue the difference between the two practices by using emotive language to distinguish the two.

Circumcision, in both males and females, is, by definition, mutilation. Female genital mutilation is also known as female circumcision, so using the word ''mutilation'' for the female variety, in an attempt to back-up your argument, is rather specious.

Saying that ''male circumcision is nothing compared to female circumcision'' is false, because those terms do not apply to one specific procedure. Female circumcision is an umbrella term which covers at least a dozen forms of genital cutting which range from the mild to the extreme.

The most notorious varieties of female circumcision are, of course, much worse than the usual procedure that is practiced on a young boy. However, the more moderate varieties of female circumcision, such as the partial removal of the labia minora or the clitoral hood, are much more analogous with the removal of the male foreskin.

Originally posted by amazed
reduces pretty much completely the chances for cancer. Not to mention all the other positives of male circumcision.

What cancer reduction ? What positives of male circumcision ?

People who defend circumcision are usually those who are already cut, those who have consented to have one of their son's mutilated in this way, or those who obnoxiously think that a child is the ''property'' of the parents, and that they have a ''right'' to do what they wish to them.

Originally posted by amazed
Do a little research before you try to pretend that male circumcision and female mutilation are equal. They are not.

It's incredible how many people will accept something as ''OK'' without any critical thought, just because it's a cultural norm.

This is why so many people accept male circumcision, but are repulsed at the thought of cutting up a young girl's private parts. This same reaction of revulsion would accompany the thought of needlessly cutting a young boy's penis, if these people weren't conditioned to accept it in Western society. Think critically, people !

As I've already explained, male and female circumcision are umbrella terms which cover a number of practices. Many forms of female circumcision are far worse than male circumcision, but many other forms of female genital mutilation are pretty much comparable to cutting off the foreskin.

Altering the genitalia of both boys and girls is an archaic, primitive and barbaric practice that has no place in a modern society.

Hey if multiple million years of evolution gave me foreskin its likely there for a reason I doubt God will care if I keep it... on the other hand If God made me this way its because he wants me this way so I won't complain and I surely won't jump under the blade... my foreskin and I we're kind of very attached to each other....

If "God" wanted the foreskin cut off a baby wouldn't there be a dotted line and
"cut here" ??

Or better yet, wouldn't "God" have just made babies without foreskins if that is
the way it is supposed to be ?

It's nothing but a religious ritual that pains and mutilates a baby for no sane reason.

reply to post by BirdOfillOmen


There are many issues of differing importance. That doesn't mean we must only ever discuss the most important issue. We can discuss multiple issues at every end of the scale. That being said, mutilation of a male's penises at birth is a serious problem that needs to be outlawed. It's a repulsive violation of human rights and has no place in a modern society.

Being cut carries a number of health benefits as well as other benefits (sexual stamina being one of them). Circumcision is doing a child a great favour.

We wont let ourselves be intimidated by liberals who want to outlaw everything they dont understand or that is remotely connected to religion.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Being cut carries a number of health benefits as well as other benefits (sexual stamina being one of them).

LOL... "Sexual stamina"...

That doesn't make any sense, circumcised men need pills like viagra
because their penises are deadened by the removal of the foreskin.

If you can't get it up without a pill it's broken.

reply to post by lucid eyes


I for one would not outlaw the act. However, I personally would prefer to be given the choice, not have that decision made for me. But, now you mention it, could you please explain why the cutting of the foreskin increases sexual stamina?

I had the chop at 16 months old,had some type of infection i believe,lose the foreskin or risk the whole show,thank god my parents decided without my consent to get it done,was thinking of getting my son done when he was born (5 years ago) but in Australia it's getting hard (no pun intended lol) to find a doc to do it,plus it's less common now so we didn't want him to be the odd one out,

reply to post by lucid eyes

Being cut carries a number of health benefits as well as other benefits (sexual stamina being one of them). Circumcision is doing a child a great favour.

Health benefits are miniscule, if any, and this sexual stamina thing is just an adverse effect of lower sensitivity, it is not a positive. If it is so great, let the boy decide when he grows up for himself, that is the correct way.

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
could you please explain why the cutting of the foreskin increases sexual stamina?

Going into detail would violate the T&C. I`ll say this much: Due to decreased sensitivity, nothing premature happens and one can go on for a very long time.

Originally posted by Travlla
I had the chop at 16 months old,had some type of infection i believe,lose the foreskin or risk the whole show,thank god my parents decided without my consent to get it done,was thinking of getting my son done when he was born (5 years ago) but in Australia it's getting hard (no pun intended lol) to find a doc to do it,plus it's less common now so we didn't want him to be the odd one out,

I have never heard of a foreskin infection that would put the penis at risk of
being amputated...

reply to post by Travlla

I had the chop at 16 months old,had some type of infection i believe,lose the foreskin or risk the whole show,thank god my parents decided without my consent to get it done

When there is a medical reason to do it, it is entirely different matter. Routine neonatal circumcision is the issue here.