I am very confused about the state of genital mutilation in the West

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Some say 'premature ejaculation,' I say 'life-hack.'

Like brushing your teeth on the shitter.

Or cooking pasta in the shower.

Always winning anymore, everyday bruh!

[clubgop]

Some say 'premature ejaculation,' I say 'life-hack.'

Like brushing your teeth on the shitter.

The real life hack is getting rid of the unnecessary sheath that only exposes your dick to irritants and infections.

[clubgop]

This is precisely why I started to run up against moral quandaries regarding male genital mutilation. If it's proposed as some sort of mitigation against STD's I tend to listen. Frankly though every time I see a proponent of it it's always about muh feelz

Seems like a bit of a rash decision to make for a newborn.

Something is rotten here. Rotten to the core.

It does seem like a decision that ought to be made by the owner of said foreskin rather than made by someone else. Over here you cannot get a piercing on your genitalia until you are 18 years old yet you can have part of your cock removed as a baby. I'm pro choice on mutilation of your own private parts but against having that decision made by others.

Yes that decision should be made by the owner. When you buy a car on financing who holds title? The lending institution. When you mortgage a house who holds title? The lending institution. Who is legally responsible for a child until they reach the age of maturity? The parents. You support the outright murder of that baby, minutes before birth at a place far less regulated than your piercing pagoda example, because "that's a women's right to choose, but once that baby is born that same women can't make the decision in consultation with her doctor to provide a procedure for the health of that child? Thanks for proving you aren't pro choice just pro abortion. Congratulations you fuck children figuratively not literally. You must be so proud.

[Montegriffo]

So you have decided that I am pro abortion have you? That is another decision I would rather make for myself instead of having someone else do it for me.

[K@th]

but no gorl in the states is gonna go down on an uncircumsiEd dick.

You clearly haven't met all the girls.

[Speaker to Animals]

Milo Yiannopolous once said he is not a fan of uncircumcised penis. I never heard women complain about it, though.

It must stink more, but I wouldn't know, since I rock the clean mushroom tip.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, shit. Critical hit on the dudes rocking the monkey peckers:

https://www.yourtango.com/2014210856/se ... ed-penises

[BjornP]

While both can be characterized as mutilation, i.e the deliberate amputation of healthy tissue, the difference between male and female genital circumcision is the sexual control element with FGM. The idea (among most of those cultures that practise it), is that it is a great way of controlling the "wild" female libido from committing acts of adultery. Simply put: Woman who feels less horny is a woman less likely to cheat on her husband.

Anglo-North American culture treats male circumcision the same way women and men in cultures accept FGM as ethically valid and neccesary. I guarentee you that they will present "logical" arguments for why women ought to be clitorectimized. Maybe one of them will go the StA route and incredously scoff at the notion of un-FGM'ed women, arguing that "logically" they must be women who run around sex-crazed and comitting acts of infidelity at every second of the day. Their (witch) doctors will probably agree with them, too. It's like that 80's movie about a cola bottle getting worshipped by an African tribe or something ("The gods are/must be crazy"?)

In this context, StA is the pious follower of everything the witch doctors say, last seen trying to catch a cheetah because the witch doctor told him he must teabag it blindfolded a hundred and sixty times, while singing "Hakuna Matata" in a posh British accent.

Is there a rational reason a non-Jew, non-Muslim young male should be circumcised? Sure, if the household severely lacks access to clean water and soap and cannot afford antibiotics if their kid were to get a UTI. In a certain, specific context, male circumcision makes sense. That certain, specfic context just doesn't apply to modern, Western societies with abundant clean water supplies and access to advanced health care - advanced compared to the time of the ancient egyptians and hebrews who came up with it (I believe ancient egyptians did FGM, too, btw.) Your medical industry profits from selling male circumcision to easily scared parents.

The sensible thing to do at this point is look up rates of STD's of US and Canada (I think Canada has the same extent of circumcised males?) and compare those numbers to all the other countries in the world that don't practise male circumcision (which is practically any culture and country that isn't Jewish, Muslim or East African/Egyptian). So, for example...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... eague.html

[clubgop]

So you have decided that I am pro abortion have you? That is another decision I would rather make for myself instead of having someone else do it for me.

Now I know you are full of shit. You give the lamest pro abortion arguments on this board. Give the baby a choice? How is that done?

[clubgop]

While both can be characterized as mutilation, i.e the deliberate amputation of healthy tissue, the difference between male and female genital circumcision is the sexual control element with FGM. The idea (among most of those cultures that practise it), is that it is a great way of controlling the "wild" female libido from committing acts of adultery. Simply put: Woman who feels less horny is a woman less likely to cheat on her husband.

Anglo-North American culture treats male circumcision the same way women and men in cultures accept FGM as ethically valid and neccesary. I guarentee you that they will present "logical" arguments for why women ought to be clitorectimized. Maybe one of them will go the StA route and incredously scoff at the notion of un-FGM'ed women, arguing that "logically" they must be women who run around sex-crazed and comitting acts of infidelity at every second of the day. Their (witch) doctors will probably agree with them, too. It's like that 80's movie about a cola bottle getting worshipped by an African tribe or something ("The gods are/must be crazy"?)

In this context, StA is the pious follower of everything the witch doctors say, last seen trying to catch a cheetah because the witch doctor told him he must teabag it blindfolded a hundred and sixty times, while singing "Hakuna Matata" in a posh British accent.

Is there a rational reason a non-Jew, non-Muslim young male should be circumcised? Sure, if the household severely lacks access to clean water and soap and cannot afford antibiotics if their kid were to get a UTI. In a certain, specific context, male circumcision makes sense. That certain, specfic context just doesn't apply to modern, Western societies with abundant clean water supplies and access to advanced health care - advanced compared to the time of the ancient egyptians and hebrews who came up with it (I believe ancient egyptians did FGM, too, btw.) Your medical industry profits from selling male circumcision to easily scared parents.

The sensible thing to do at this point is look up rates of STD's of US and Canada (I think Canada has the same extent of circumcised males?) and compare those numbers to all the other countries in the world that don't practise male circumcision (which is practically any culture and country that isn't Jewish, Muslim or East African/Egyptian). So, for example...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... eague.html

I got access to the THUNDER DOME. Fuck you nasty European bastards.