|
How do you like your pen0r? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Gauss |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
but at the same time, you're not doing anything wrong physically to the body except removing skin.
IT'S ING SKIN PEOPLE, HELLOOOOOOOOO |
Why don't you cut off your eyelids then?
IT'S ING SKIN PEOPLE, HELLOOOOOOOOOO!
Skin with purpose you ing dolt. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| i'm relieved to hear the majority of males on this board are anti-circumcision- it's also interesting to note that almost 100% of the people who are anti-circumcision aren't from the US (it's very common and there's a lot of misinformation being spread in the US), while the small percentage that *are* pro-circumcision are from the west. |
|
|
| Rose |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm going to have a son in about 2-3 weeks |
My condolences. |
|
|
| Theresa |
I have a hard time understanding how people don't view this practice as genital mutilation. I also find it interesting that most people would be against female mutilation, but not male?
The procedure is entirely unnecessary, and founded in illogical reasoning. It was initially started to make male children 'asexual' because it was perceived at the time that the foreskin, being a part of sexuality, was 'unclean' or 'unholy'. Although there are disputes of whether this was the initial reasoning or if there were other postulations, regardless, they all stem from religion and their attempt to control their people.
Then, years later some people started trying to come up with legitimate excuses for this barbaric (definition: without civilizing influences) practice. There is no concrete evidence that supports this procedure.
I am surprised that there are very few males who seem to be outraged by what was taken away from them without any consent on their part. I don't care if you are God himself, if I was born with something I am supposed to have and it is in its natural form and state, you have no right to change that without my sole consent. If I was a male and I had been circumcised, I would be pretty pissed off.
Also, for those of you who question whether it is barbaric or not, I suggest you Youtube some videos. There is no anesthetic used, no pain killers, just lopping it off - if that isn't primitive... well then I don't know. |
|
|
| simplcake |
doesnt matter if you're cut or uncut. if you shower often and are a clean person then i dont see a reason why you wouldnt keep your pen0r clean
oh and uncut fap FTW |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
I'm sure this kid is going to be really happy about his parents decision to lop off his foreskin
| quote: | ‘CIRCUMCISION GONE WRONG’ JURY HAS AWARDED $2.3 MILLION
June 16, 2009, 10:36 am
Filed under: Uncategorized
Guardian.co.uk : A Fulton County jury has awarded $1.8 million in damages to a boy injured in a botched circumcision.
The state court jury gave another $500,000 to the boy’s mother in the decision rendered Friday.
The case involves a child, identified only as D.P. Jr., who was born at South Fulton Medical Center in 2004. In a suit filed two years later, his mother contended that the doctor who circumcised him removed too much tissue and that his pediatrician failed to respond when a nurse complained of excessive bleeding. The boy’s penis was severed.
The jury found that both the pediatrician, Dr. Cheryl Kendall, and the physician who performed the circumcision, Dr. Haiba Sonyika, were negligent. South Fulton Medical Center was absolved of liability.
The pediatrician’s lawyer, Roger Harris, said he disagreed that the jury’s decision indicated that Kendall was negligent because she didn’t go to the hospital. “We believe there was error committed during the course of the trial,” he said.
In 1985, the penises of two infants were nearly destroyed during circumcisions with an electric cauterizing needle at Northside Hospital. Lawsuits filed against both doctors by the parents of the infants resulted in out-of-court settlements. |
|
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gauss
Why don't you cut off your eyelids then?
IT'S ING SKIN PEOPLE, HELLOOOOOOOOOO!
Skin with purpose you ing dolt. |
no, there is no purpose to it. it's an extra flap of skin. you see what's under neath it? MORE SKIN.
if you cut off your eyelids, then you have nothing to protect your eyes.
if you cut off your foreskin, YOU STILL HAVE SKIN TO PROTECT YOUR SHAFT.
comparing eye lids to foreskin is pretty ing stupid. |
|
|
| Seppuku |
| At the end of the day, your penis still looks like an anteater. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
no, there is no purpose to it. it's an extra flap of skin. you see what's under neath it? MORE SKIN.
if you cut off your eyelids, then you have nothing to protect your eyes.
if you cut off your foreskin, YOU STILL HAVE SKIN TO PROTECT YOUR SHAFT.
comparing eye lids to foreskin is pretty ing stupid. |
you're a retard.
of course it's there for protection. when you get circumcized, an extra layer of skin grows over your glans that pretty much serves the same purpose as a foreskin- of course, you wouldn't know this, because you've had that unnatural layer of skin over the tip of your cut dick for as long as you can remember.
i'm not saying the eyelid comparison is a good one, because obviously a layer of skin doesn't grow over the eye in the event of eyelid removal, but you get the idea. |
|
|
| iTranscendence |
| ITT: cutfags vs uncutfags |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
you're a retard.
of course it's there for protection. when you get circumcized, an extra layer of skin grows over your glans that pretty much serves the same purpose as a foreskin- of course, you wouldn't know this, because you've had that unnatural layer of skin over the tip of your cut dick for as long as you can remember.
i'm not saying the eyelid comparison is a good one, because obviously a layer of skin doesn't grow over the eye in the event of eyelid removal, but you get the idea. |
no, it's not a good one. it fact, it's a ing awful one. if you lift up your foreskin, there IS skin underneath it...amiright? i mean, everone always says, "make sure you wash under your foreskin...bla bla bla". so CLEARLY there's something underneath it. it's not like if you lift it up you see the inside of your shaft.
we're talking about a relatively useless piece of skin that when removed does not affect the outcome of the functionality of the dick. (unless obviously something happens during the removal). |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
no, it's not a good one. it fact, it's a ing awful one. if you lift up your foreskin, there IS skin underneath it...amiright? i mean, everone always says, "make sure you wash under your foreskin...bla bla bla". so CLEARLY there's something underneath it. it's not like if you lift it up you see the inside of your shaft.
we're talking about a relatively useless piece of skin that when removed does not affect the outcome of the functionality of the dick. (unless obviously something happens during the removal). |
it's not the same as the epidermis dude. i don't know what to compare it to. it needs to stay protected for sure. for example, i cant imagine myself walking around with my foreskin pulled back all day, because the skin surrounding the glans is so sensitive it would probably be slightly painful after a while. again if you don't have an uncut dick, you won't fully understand what i'm talking about.
edit: and if we're going to talk about skin removal that doesn't affect the functionality of the dick- why not remove your earlobes? it doesn't affect your hearing if it's removed. would it be ethical for someone to remove your earlobes without your permission, just because they don't serve a purpose? |
|
|
|
|
