Circumcision: The Elephant in the Hospital. - Page 10

On September 09 2011 09:01 DoubleReed wrote:


So would you say tattoos and piercings are self-mutiliation?

On September 09 2011 08:26 phosphorylation wrote:
Good luck trying to convince the other side that his penis is in an inferior form, on the internet no less.

On September 09 2011 08:12 Harrow wrote:
Circumcised people in this thread seem to think that it's some kind of inconvenient nightmare to clean yourself when you're not circumcised. It's really, really not.

It's also baffling to me that "it looks better" is actually an argument. What other kinds of cosmetic surgery do we perform on babies?

And "I don't remember it" doesn't work for me either. I mean, I could punch ten babies in the face and none of them would remember it when they grew up. Still think I'd be arrested for punching babies in the face for no reason.

On September 09 2011 09:03 Interloper wrote:


Holes from piercings heal. And tattoos can be removed, but may/will leave som scarring, so no and yes i guess...

On September 09 2011 09:06 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
A circumcised penis looks the same as an uncircumcised one when fully erect and foreskin pulled back. Dunno how some people can say one or the other is nicer looking. Unless you're comparing them when flacid but I'm going to assume women are less interested in limp dicks.

Statue of David was considered the perfect male until times changed and certain people began pushing the idea that a cut penis is nice while the uncut penis is aesthetically nasty. The male ego is a fragile thing especially when it comes to the penis.

On September 09 2011 08:30 Mindcrime wrote:
I prefer a pretty pussy, so I'm going to snip my daughter's labia a little bit.

It's just aesthetics man! don't worry about it!

like wtf

On September 09 2011 09:08 pwncakery wrote:
"The claim that circumcision protects against HIV is based on 5,400 circumcisions protecting (perhaps) just 73 men. This is protecting a tiny amount of 0.014% of all circumcised men. (source from The Intactivism Pages)"

I'm just getting back to class, but isn't 73/5400 1.4% rather than 0.014%?

On September 09 2011 09:09 zeru wrote:

I thought the inferiority complex thing was completely made up nonsense too, but after reading this thread...i dunno <.<

On September 09 2011 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:


Holes from piercings do not always heal. Tattoos are rarely removed and it's a much more expensive, painful procedure.

It's simply a matter of language. How am I suppose to have a legitimate conversation for why circumcision should be perfectly legal when people are saying that that means I must be for mutilating babies? Like what the hell. This conversation will go nowhere.

On September 09 2011 09:10 SonicTitan wrote:
I've always found the arguments against circumcision (a relatively new phenomenon, I'd like to note) to be complete bullshit - comparisons to genital mutilation are not only untrue, but degrade what that word actually means when applied to what happens to baby girls in certain parts of the world every day.

But what really prompted me to post was OP's assertion that I, as a circumcised male, feel "inferior" because I experience "less" sexual pleasure than uncircumcised men.

So first of all; fuck you, OP, you don't know the first goddamned thing about how I feel in bed, nor my performance in it.

Second of all, I don't think most men would disagree when I said that a certain amount of psychological sexual pleasure is derived from pleasing your partner. Being able to bring a woman to orgasm multiple times is considered a sign of masculinity and verility, and if a circumcision helps me achieve that, then it would actually have the exact opposite effect that OP claims.

You can pull skewed statistics from your ass in argument against circumcision all you want, but when you start claiming that I personally feel inferior for it (or even better, that my father had me circumcised because HE feels inferior) that's a personal attack. You really expect to win people over that way?