Hi Sup Forums
Why is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) illegal in the majority of the world, yet Male Genital Mutilation (MGM - otherwise known as 'circumcision') is completely acceptable?
Before you blame the jews - the majority of Americans are circumcised (somewhere between 60-80% of the population), with an almost negligible number being for legitimate healthcare concerns.
Interested in your thoughts.
Other urls found in this thread:
scientificamerican.com
noharmm.org
nypost.com
cdc.gov
twitter.com
>before you blame the jews
What do you mean? There is no valid reason to cut off skin of your penis. People do it because "other people do it"
>Before you blame the jews
Too late
>the majority of Americans are circumcised
by?
(((DOCTORS)))
Entirely agree. Problem is that MGM is a covenant with huge significance in the Jewish and Muslim faiths.
So FGM would be fine and dandy if it were only performed by doctors?
Isn't there medical reasons for circumcisions and doing it young prevents you having to be concerned about it.
Also, female circumcision is much more damaging and miserable compared to male circumcision. The only people who seem to think FGM is ok is people who don't really consider women people.
Shekels.
Doctors sell the foreskins to cosmetics companies for around 10k a pop (which gets taxed), who then use the cells in the foreskins to produce collagen - that they then sell on to other companies or use in anti-aging make-up. Which is then sold, heavily, and taxed.
Government makes millions from harvesting your wangs and you never see a goddamn penny of it.
Hence why it's illegal in Canada to publish any study that proves any negative consequences of circumcision - most likely illegal in most western countries too. Which is why doctors always say "There is no evidence suggesting circumcision is harmful" - it hasn't been studied unbiasedly or relevant data is hidden from the public.
Essentially, governments are so dependant on this blood money they'll never ban it, or slap an "age of consent" on it, even in this great age of progressiveness and equality.
Really think about it, they are earning so much from this racket, that they cannot actually afford to let it go.
That's how bad it is.
It's a dying tradition here. I and plenty of others my age are not circumcised, yet my brother was. I was born in 1990, he was born in 1984.
Any hygiene shit is completely overblown. You just automatically do it while bathing, like cleaning between your ass cheeks.
It's made up bullshit. Smega doesn't even build up if you shower regularly and circumcised people like to believe it's like scraping barnacles off a boat when in fact they had part of their penis removed for no fucking reason.
So if FGM is more harmful, MGM is okay? Can we not agree that mutilating anyone's genitals should be avoided?
Also - what medical reasons exist that can be treated by circumcision? I only ask because in Europe the incidence rate is ~15%, perhaps we should all be worried.
have fun being called pickle dick behind your back, and your boyfriend wondering to lube him or you.
>boom
Because the little flick of dust penis that women have would grow to be "too small". And since they don't cum and only piss and men cum from their ass something's gotta give
>Also, female circumcision is much more damaging and miserable compared to male circumcision. The only people who seem to think FGM is ok is people who don't really consider women people.
Fuck off feminazi jew.
>Hurrr durr, it's okay to skin peoples wangs without anasthetic (or consent) legally, because women sometimes have a crime committed against them.
No I think FMG is completely acceptable, because for a group of people who always talk about consent, feminazis sure do love chopping babies wang up before they can even say "yes" or "no".
Fuck them. They don't deserve sympathy when they get some real goddamn equality.
>The fibroblasts in Vavelta are isolated from the foreskins taken from baby boys, given several months to grow and multiply in the lab, and then packaged into treatment vials that are shipped to a select group of U.K. physicians. Each vial costs approximately 750 pounds, or $1,000], according to the company spokesperson.
>scientificamerican.com
Holy shit I thought you were making this up for a second.
>and your boyfriend wondering to lube him or you.
Can you translate this please? I don't speak circumcised.
Because it doesn't leave your genitals sexually useless
The reason for fgm is the people who do it think women are objects and they must always feel like objects
The reason for circumcision (generally speaking) is cause you get shit caught in there and get shmegma
>Been living with an uncircumcised penis for 25 years.
>Never once had something 'caught' in there.
Smegma only a problem if you don't shower/bathe regularly. Guess that must not be your thing...
We should leave all swords out of sheaths. Nice n rusty
This. I love how cutfags just make up this bullshit when the majority of the world isn't cut.
>muh, muh smega!
Like I said above, they act like it's scraping barnacles off a boat when it's even easier than washing your ass.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, user.
Nope. It's literally just money.
Speak up against it and be labelled a misogynist because you're fighting for mens rights.
That's right, we'll be labelled sexist, for not having parts of our bodies forcibly removed and sold for profit, all so some old feminazi bitch can cover up her fucking wrinckles and a politician can keep his cash flowing.
Seriously, if Muslims were against circumcision, I'd probably be on their side. But they're just like the Jews too, only more violent.
Women have clitorati. Little dinks. They're too small to destroy. Unlike men. There is nothing inside women that has them cum in any fashion. Only the tiny lady penis. Because men can cum from inside their ass, their dicks must suffer. Also I find it neat that nobody thinks vaginas stink, only penises
Circumcision is literally done to lower the sensitivity of the dick
You're more susceptible as a baby which is why parents have it done for their children as a general safety precaution and also because most people don't grow up to miss their fucking foreskin
Circumcision cures ebolaids, libido, as well as prevent penis Cancer.
Not convinced yet?
Well dang, I guess I'm just gonna have to miss out and that awesome foreskin sex I'm always hearing about
Susceptible to what exactly?
Also - you probably wouldn't miss your balls if those were cut off when you were a kid. They get hurt easily, literally take 8 years off your life (testosterone) and are the cause of numerous cancers.
Should we start doing that?
They actually use those parts. My foreskin is useless. Bio 101
Docking? Also the foreskin is the area of a tennis court. Enjoy its loss. Rather than restoring I will mock nature because i'm SMRT
Dumbass. They are analogous structures physiologically
>girls in shitty mud hut countries should get their genitals sliced off by razors because some feminist said circumcision isn't as bad
>Mfw the majority of American parents actually believe this
>Mfw I have no face or foreskin
It's all so tiresome
I guess I'm a feminazi jew because I like it when girls enjoy having sex with me. Must be a personal problem.
Testicles are also the cause of reproduction, so no not a good idea
Foreskins are the cause of slightly cooler sex apparently, some people feel okay making that trade off I imagine
And in terms of specific diseases, Lets say your parents let you play naked on the beach as a two year old. Sand gets in your foreskin and doesn't get cleaned out. It irritates you, but since your two all you can think to do is squeeze your oenis which just makes tiny lacerations which get infected and voila
Again, it's actually illegal in many places to publish the negative side-effects of it, so...
Straight up, you're fucking biased, you jewish cunt.
Secondly, if there were more FGM, and we could study it, I'm willing to bet we could find some positive side effects of it too, just to encourage it - still don't make it right.
Because women are misandrists and kikes are loxists. And feminists are misandrist loxists.
There are 20 referenced there, but I'll save you a read and give you some highlights:
>2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants.
>3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1].
>7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery.
>8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme
Oh yeah, and:
>16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury.
>17. Zero risk of death from surgery.
>18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding.
That is just awful false equivalence.
Testicles do a fuck load more than foreskin does.
Yeah, fuck them nigresses. They'd be just as bad if you airdropped them into our culture for a year.
Seriously, fucking gashes.
>area of a tennis court
Wowe, I gues I'm a #foreskinfollower now
No, you retard. Hot heck is the clitoris as important as the foreskin? Actually, that's an easy one. Take the labia majora. Even that serves a greater purpose than a piece of covering skin.
I'm starting to believe in the "Fucking leaf" meme. A complete moron. Damn.
Then don't circumcise your children and promote others to do the same with a nice little fact sheet.
Why so butthurt over this?
No they don't, they keep the foreskins in a jar, they even show it to you if you ask them to.
>Then don't mutilate the genitals of your baby girls, and promote others to do the same with a nice little factsheet.
>Why so butthurt over this?
Literally the point of the thread.
But the G-spot, and the anterior fornix?
Because it looks right? I'm an American, and I couldn't imagine having an uncircumcised dick. It would be harder to clean, and just plain ugly.
I'm happy with my beautiful CIRCUMCISED cock.
Maybe the parents should be either cleaning or teaching the kid how to clean itself properly
Or is that one too hard for Americans
>Ebolaids
I thought my sarcasm was obvious, but ok.
Because some greedy ass jews are speaking all "quality, fairness and consent" one minute, and literally forcible harvesting body parts for profit another minute.
The same people that'll say 'men are oppressive' perpetuate this body-harvesting industry by buying into it.
The same people that'll portray men as sex offenders, and predators who target children in the media, are literally cutting up babies genitals.
And the worst part is, no one is given this "choice", and anyone who get's it, never sees a goddamn penny of that money.
That's why I'm butthurt.
I'm not even cut (civilised world), but these fucking hypocrites piss me the fuck off.
The only people who don't seem to mind are those who'retrying to justify the fact they got forcibly cut.
It's like some wierd wangy stockholm syndrome.
Yeah but your cocks are ugly.
>israel.
Disregarded.
Out of interest, as a country that values freedom as one of its pillars of society, do you not feel at least to some extent wronged that you had non-essential surgery forced upon you as an infant?
I could understand this argument if it were a cosmetic procedure that was done by choice... But performing what amounts to plastic surgery on children is another matter entirely.
Not an argument
I am so glad I was circumcised unlike you freaks. My cock is beautiful. Want to see?
Not really. My cock is a beautiful work of art.
Yeah it is your cock is ugly. American men have large, beautifully cut dicks.
Not an argument.
Personally I just wouldn't want to have to root around in my toddlers foreskin just to be safe, but again, do whatever you want, if it makes you feel better to do that hen do it, Americans don't like parent/child nudity so not wanting to clean your kids cock off after every beach trip sounds kind of American I guess
>This many posts about how great his dick is.
>Uncircumcised people have issues.
>do you not feel at least to some extent wronged that you had non-essential surgery forced upon you as an infant?
Nope. Don't care even a little. My cock has had two decades of complimented and excellent service.
I'm not going to have kids, but if I did I would probably read up on it and discuss it with the mother if I was going to have a boy. I certainly wouldn't let some Rabbi come near my boy's dick with his mouth though.
Fine, land of the Jews, the same religion that originally, and continuously perpetuates the circumcision of infants, and has a reputation of lying and using underhanded methods to obtain profits, how can I be sure that what you told me is true, when a quick google search tells me otherwise.
Straight off the bat, I've seen evidence that I'm right, yet you, with the inherent bias towards circumcision, expects me to just take your words as 'truth'?
That is why I disregarded your opinion, Jew. You are not a reliable source of information regarding circumcision.
You asked for it buddy
Christcuckholdry and American puritanism
No the point is (((doctors))) are controlled by the Jews, do you even meme?
AMEN
Makes sense, in a strange kind of way. I suppose Europeans do tend to be a lot more liberal in terms of nudity - but not looking after your kid's health until he's old enough to do it for himself just sounds kinda wrong...
Assuming these decades of complimented service were in relation to sexual exploits, what would be the difference from your perspective between having it done as an infant and being given the choice as a consenting adult.
I fear the answer would be: no man in their right mind would voluntarily have their penis circumcised.
This is the one issue I fully agree with MGTOW and MRA faggots. The answer is because society views and treats males as disposable. Men are meant to be used or even treated harshly while women are to be preserved and kept. Both feminist dykes and conservative Christfags all agree on this implicitly if not explicitly. QED the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.
Who hurt you so bad?
My apologies for missing your witticism, whatever it may have been.
No, we did not.
Also you're not even showing the part of the penis that is relevant to this discussion.
How dense are you?
Or, from a different perspective, how mediocre are you as a troll?
What makes you think I support circumcision? I'm just here to dispell the notion that the foreskins are cut for any non-religous reasons.
Actually many American men have gotten their cock cut later in life.
In fact, more men are doing it.
I literally suggested you have issues about your dick because you're so obsessed with talking about it, and your response is to talk about it some more?
Bravo.
>Assuming these decades of complimented service were in relation to sexual exploits, what would be the difference from your perspective between having it done as an infant and being given the choice as a consenting adult.
>I fear the answer would be: no man in their right mind would voluntarily have their penis circumcised.
Well, I was having sex before I qualified as a "consenting adult", besides that though I don't know what difference it would make. Going uncircumcised may have turned off a lot of my partners due to, as a white American, it is normal to be circumcised.
Would I have decided to get circumcised later? It's tough, maybe peer pressure from girls going "ewww" may encourage me to do so, but I imagine the idea of someone coming at my cock with a scalpel would probably keep me away.
Doing it young also violates almost every rule of medical ethics because there's no need to perform the surgery that young in the first place.
Also, there are many types of FGM.
Tu est un(e) imbecile. Baise-toi.
I'm cut and I have a feeling it's because my dad left before I was born and my single mom was angry with men. Probably thought I'd do the same thing. She also treats her new husband like shit. Pretty messed up.
>there are no official statistics on the phenomenon
>Literally no information at all.
Aww the cute little American thinks he can speak French
>Doing it young also violates almost every rule of medical ethics because there's no need to perform the surgery that young in the first place.
I agree, I find the acceptance of such an elective surgery on an infant a bit baffling, but Christians do a lot of things I don't get.
>Also, there are many types of FGM.
I've only heard of a clitectomy or whatever it's called, which sounds miserable, even as someone without one.
Baise toi?
Est ce que je suis devenu retardé, ou c'est just burgers qui est retardé comme toujours?
Most defenders and performers of FGM are female. What's more, not all FGM leaves the female incapable of enjoying sex at all or reproducing. Something like 97% of Egyptian women have undergone forms of FGM, but Egyptians are still having babies.
That's not to say that either FGM or MGM is right.
A valid and well thought out response, thanks.
Out out of interest, how often does anyone get turned down for sex purely based on the state of their penis? I mean, I find it somewhat hard to believe that (unless you have some clear disease!) a girl would get far enough to see your dick, then cool off at the last second...
Maybe it's just European girls are easier lays.
>Posts a picture of his balls and shaft but no glans in a conversation about foreskins.
>Insults other people's intelligence.
Okay then.
Once again, not only was the picture completely unnecessary, but it's also ridiculously off-topic.
So, once again, you're a complete moron, as you have demonstrated, while your insulting my intelligence is only because my opinion differs from yours.
So, once again... Either you're a complete moron who doesn't understand anything, or your trolling is below shit-tier. But you're still a complete moron.
most FGM removes the hood around the clitoris, exactly analogous to circumcision, which is still barbaric
it's not a "Christian" thing, it's a puritan thing. Look up Kellogg's views on circumcision and tell me if you still think it's a harmless little procedure
> you can't judge primitive culture
> all culture are equal
> don't inject your view of mondernity upon primitive culture
> but but they are cutting little girls cunt
> DISREGARD EVERYTHING WE SAID AND BAN THAT SHIT
> the other barbarious custom can stay but don't cut women cunt
Anthropology 101
it doesn't happen, no one gives a shit, and I've even had girls tell me they prefer the foreskin as it keeps the girl's cum inside as a lubricant
>general safety precaution
Are you saying that having an open wound and freshly exposed mucous membrane in an area regularly exposed to urine and feces is safer than leaving body parts to work the way they're supposed to?
Your last point is bullshit. Many, many, many males have suffered serious psychological issues as a result of being circumcised.
The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis in childhood.
Just make sure you mutilate your own boy if you ever have one. That way, your pain wasn't in pain, as long as you can inflict it on another person.
I don't know honestly. Since we're talking about "would you get it when you turned 18", I'm thinking about how fickle teenaged girls could be and could imagine it being an issue for less experienced girls.
If nothing else it may reduce the chance for a second time.
>it's not a "Christian" thing, it's a puritan thing. Look up Kellogg's views on circumcision and tell me if you still think it's a harmless little procedure
This is America, founded by Puritans! Maybe I'm too much of a New Englander?
Circumcision (male) isn't something I spend any thought on, nevermind read about. Kellogg is always a source of "interesting" opinions.
What your teacher forgot to tell you was that skin is an important organ, and that foreskin is particularly unique.
Being cut= less sensitivity= lasting longer.
Also snipping the foreskin makes the dick look bigger, and most men would want their dick to look bigger, no?
And circumcision is proven to lower the risk of contracting HIV and other STDs.
cdc.gov
Shhh. No truth allowed.
How on earth does reducing the girth of a penis make it look larger?
>Quote a post.
>Address literally none of it.
A job well done.
Also, how many babies care about the size of their dick?
It makes the tip seem to bulge outwards more.
It's a shame you waited this long to bring up your only (somewhat) valid point.
Myself and my uncircumcised dick have been nowhere near anyone with a risk of STDs without the help of a condom. If you're relying on just getting cut to not catch the bug, well... Good luck.
Based off of research done with flawed methodology on consenting adults in rural Africa. Doesn't apply really to Western infants. Even if it did, it deals with female to male transmission, which is uncommon to begin with. Even if there was an applicable risk reduction, it's no substitute for wearing a condom, and the risk difference in that case is so negligible that it's useless as an argument.
People who pull this card to justify amputating healthy tissue from infants "prophylactically" are full of shit.
...