Circumcision

Enjoy your penis, but don’t cut his!

tumblr_mdsoppL86P1qctkcl
Comments (9)
  1. Dave says:

    The thing about MGM is that the arguments advanced for it – hygene, religion/culture, aesthetics – are *exactly the same* as the arguments for FGM.

    The deeper thing is that the *real* reason is also identical: to reduce sexual pleasure.

  2. Jay Double Gee says:

    MGM is mostly an american issue. It is not a gender issue in most European, Latin American, Asian or Australian States. Most people around the world, with the exception of Islamic republics and the Arab world (surprise surprise) do NOT mutilate their boys.

    This is an American issue.

    1. TheZec says:

      Also an African issue regardless of religion, where the majority circumcise their males as a rite of passage among other things, and it’s being pushed on the few that don’t as an “effective” means of reducing the chance of HIV transmission. There have been cases in which men were held down by mobs and publicly circumcised.

  3. FerrisZen says:

    I have worked at a hospital for several years, and I find it disturbing how casually everyone takes the act of circumcision. It is just seen as a matter of course, and there are even jokes about the baby “not being happy” as if a pacifier just got taken away. This, coupled with the father being treated almost like another visitor, such as a neighbor that came by to visit, has demonstrated to me the disposability of males.

    1. Kong says:

      Circumcision is not a serious subject and it’s abundantly clear this is the case. No one cares, least of all women, and indeed they find it funny as nothing makes them laugh more than part of a males genitals being cut off. Circumcision is a joke subject in many films and television shows – Meet the Fockers, East is East, Kripendorfs Tribe, The Big Bang Theory, Married With Children, Conan Obrien show, 21 And Over, Movie 43 – the list goes on. It’s a subject that makes people laugh when not having to choose themselves whether it’s supposedly better for their son to have it done.

      I remember in college taking a psychology class and my female teacher decided an interesting case to look at regarding gender and whether it’s down to nature or nurture was a botched circumcision. In this case the boys penis was completely destroyed and the doctors decided to sex change him and told the parents to raise him as a girl. They did and suffice to say it didn’t work. They mutilated and destroyed this child’s life. He grew up with some real problems unimaginable to the rest of us. But still my teacher thought the interesting thing about it was the nature nurture aspect not that a human life was destroyed. Indeed it only came to me some time after that we should look at it from this perspective and use this case to question the legality and morality of circumcision.

  4. AV-Club says:

    I would like to posit a theory: Male Circumcision

    I have been a regular follower of MGTOW and although I agree with many theories there many I don’t. To me this defines my MGTOW status and I believe a healthy male community is a collection of individuals seeking to share insight into their lives in the hope of offering insight to others. I am not offering rules or proof merely a thought experiment and a starting point for discussion.

    Weirdly for me my thoughts on male circ were crystalised by an obsession to bend my friend’s girlfriend over and really inhale and smell her pussy through her panties (at time of writing this has not happened). What it got me thinking about was the role of instinctual animal responses to the other sex, especially those of the mostly subconscious smell response.

    The most superficially obvious divergence between men and women are the cock and vagina. I hold a Zoology Degree and a Microbiology Masters (as background not cock-waving) but even to the lay person it is obvious that the vagina (especially) and to a similar effect the UNcircumcised penis are in themselves unique microhabitats, full of smelly chemicals and bacteria (that can produce smelly chemicals). We all know that smell can be a powerfully emotive driver, with forgotten memories from decades past being conjured in an instant, often with revelry, on a faint smell.

    I haven’t done the full research (life’s work!) but I posit that the vaginal scent could be as individual as the fingerprint, being made up of the cycle time, the individual mix of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bacteria, the women’s own chemical (biological) make-up and her level of cleanliness (together perhaps an overall gauge of femininity?). Using this as a starting point it is easy to argue that the smell of the uncut penis is a similar, less complex but no means less valuable, indication of the masculinity and health of the male. It’s by no means just arses that dogs sniff.

    The shit we are sold through TV (burn it by the way) and the media is that bacteria and bacterial smells are bad. Although as a theory, in history putting dangerous bacteria from your unwashed penis in your eyes could have led to the “you’ll go blind” myth. The argument that being cut somehow affords a healthy benefit in modern times does not hold now that cleanliness and health are not a (selective) survival factor in any way – what are the real costs of circumcision?

    My initial feelings are aligned with most of the community that circumcision diminishes the male. I believe the act is barbaric and can only be an act of violence (except medical grounds) and it is often an act of violence against the most vulnerable of society.

    I believe the act diminishes the male because it removes a quintessential male habitat (complex ecosystem) from his immediate world. It is essentially the same as sterilising fertile land. We, as human, did not evolve in isolation, we have complex ecosystems all over our body and many of these are being persecuted with the same fervour, teeth brushing being an obvious example (I do brush my teeth and I have a foreskin).

    My feeling is that the removal of the foreskin reduces masculinity in a number of ways. The act can be traumatic and the future psychological effect is not clearly understood. Also, with the removal of a male ecosystem, comes the removal of a male smell. The removal of the male smell is what I think causes unquantifiable detriment. It is this smell that can help define (mostly subconsciously) the masculine / feminine relationship hierarchy. There is an argument that the bacteria on both sex organs could be necessary for some biological functions. The mixing of penis and vaginal bacterial communities alters both, possibly for the better.

    To sum up I see male circumcision as the removal of a unique and important ecosystem that removes an important purely male environment from the world. Therefore it should only be performed in extreme circumstances.

    I would like to offer sincere thanks to the community for being a guiding light for me during my darkest days, particularly TFM, Barbarossa and Spetnaz. I do feel that if I didn’t find the like-minded community when I did it’s likely I would just be another statistic to argue about.

  5. Beaker says:

    Hey Bar, do you believe this sh*t?:

    Circumcision does NOT reduce sensitivity of the penis, experts say
    There is great debate over whether circumcision results in reduced sensitivity of the penis in later life
    New study suggests there is no difference in sensitivity between those adult men who were circumcised as babies and those who were not
    Findings also suggest the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of a penis

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3540548/Circumcision-does-NOT-reduce-sensitivity-penis-experts-say.html#ixzz45r1JBEQc
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    1. mike says:

      Even if that were true, which it is not, circumcision is an invasive and risky procedure that results in hundreds of deaths and thousands more complications every year.

  6. Intact Genitals are a Human Right.
    This is so fundamental that very few will argue and nothing else need be said. If YOU, personally, didn’t choose to have forefoot amputated, then your human rights were violated. Intact genitals means his natural anatomy was respected. His body and human rights are intact.

    Children’s bodies are not to be exploited as living billboards by carving into and off the flesh of their genitals to show parental, religious, or societal beliefs.

    We communicate with our body and the penis is very communicative and tells more than we may want. So what does it say when it has been straitjacketed by its own skin?

    Hope you and everyone you know (plus then some) are aware that the CDC proposed to use part of our healthcare visits with techs., nurses, doctors, to coerce all males to be CircuMutilated. Inherit natural penises will be shamed in a relentless push, much like what was learned in foisting the cut in Africa. And remember, Hillary Clinton vowed to circumcise 38 million men (which is now boys and infants as well because men stopped coming forward voluntarily. Histologically proven is 65% – 85% of the male’s erogenous receptors are lost forever when cut. Yet the push is to show that there’s little to no difference. Truth is men have told me it is a remarkable loss in pleasure much more than anticipated or like the 21 yo guy, who at age 18 was talked into being cut during a well visit was told there would be no change in pleasure, is clearly devastated since having no pleasure during intercourse and foreplay with his girlfriend feels painful as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *