“Circumcision purifies and refines. It forces us to make a sacrifice. Removing the foreskin diminishes the pleasure and enjoyment of intercourse.1 We sacrifice such pleasure and proclaim that, on our scale, Divine instruction is a greater priority than self-gratification.2
Males could have been created without the foreskin, yet G‑d wanted us to remove it ourselves. This was to demonstrate that as we complete the physical appearance of our bodies, so can we perfect the contours of our personalities and the shapes of our souls.3″
Midrash Tanchumah, Tazriah 5 and Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvas Milah (The anonymous author, who identifies himself only as “a Levite from Barcelona,” was a student of the Rashba, Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, in the thirteenth century). Our sages further taught that circumcision is an offering to G‑d that, like a sacrifice, atones for inherent human weaknesses (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 29).
Classical Jewish thought has long maintained this position. However, contemporary scientific studies on this matter have failed to produce conclusive evidence either way.
Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed, v. III, ch. 29. See also R. Bachye on Genesis 17:13.
Sacrificing your own kids…. but not to Moloch, don’t be silly!
“This work involves both milah, cutting the thick foreskin, andpriyah, ripping open the thin membrane, which on a spiritual plane alludes to the subduing of our material desires.25 Afterwards, one must perform metzitzah (sucking out the blood), thus removing the excitement generated by material things from one’s body as a whole.”
Doesn’t sound Satanic at all…. they totally don’t need that spiritual energy…. but ‘priests’ need to do it, not surgeons or anyone with medical training and pain relief.
I covered previously studies of the medical damage involved, ripping out nerve bundles.
As a consequence, a husband cannot emotionally bond with his wife (Jewish men are oddly notorious for cheating) nor the wife with the husband (see satisfaction studies).
“How we relate to G‑d affects how we relate to other people. That is Hosea’s message – and vice versa: how we relate to other people affects the way we think of G‑d. Israel’s political chaos in the eighth century bce was intimately connected to its religious waywardness. A society built on corruption and exploitation is one where might prevails over right. That is not Judaism but idolatry, Baal-worship.
Now we understand why the sign of the covenant is circumcision, a commandment given in Tazria. For faith to be more than the worship of power, it must affect the most intimate relationship between men and women. In a society founded on covenant, male-female relationships are built on something other and gentler than male dominance, masculine power, sexual desire and the drive to own, control and possess. Baal must become ish. The alpha male must become the caring husband. Sex must be sanctified and tempered by mutual respect. The sexual drive must be circumcised and circumscribed so that it no longer seeks to possess and is instead content to love.”
Anti-men rhetoric, you again…. Is that ish like Ishtar?
Whereas Christians see husbands AS alpha males…. as does biology, because the alpha male is part of a monogamous breeding pair with an alpha female. There’s no such thing as a single alpha male.
“The foreskin of the male reproductive organ effects his experience of marital relations in two ways: it increases his gross sensual pleasure and decreases his sensitivity to his wife by insulating him from her to a certain extent. By removing the foreskin, the experience of marital relations becomes for the man less of a narcissistic indulgence and more of a true spiritual coupling between him and his wife. Once the spiritual dimension of marital relations is allowed into the picture, it enhances the physical dimension as well. The sages of the Talmud therefore state that ideally, at least, it is the Jewish couple that experiences the truest enjoyment in marital relations.”
Satisfaction studies have disabused them of this notion.
“As originally created, the physiology of woman was such that she did not have a menstrual cycle, and the process of conceiving and giving birth did not involve any bleeding. Nor did she bleed when she first engaged in marital relations. These (as well as other) facets of life were introduced into reality as the result of the primordial sin.”
Myth, that isn’t how hymens work. Some women aren’t even born with one. You might as well appeal to humours in healthcare. Not even wrong. Why is it always a man talking about female anatomy and periods? Sit down, shut up.
It isn’t even the hymen capable of that bleeding, it’s the friction of the vagina (and its heavy blood supply) that is capable of bleeding profusely (in virgins or non-), which must be worse/more likely when the man has no idea how to make her wet in the first place (inexperienced or incompetent lovers) and has no foreskin to reduce friction naturally.
Satan really is deceiving them.
“When a man has been circumcised of his gross sensual approach to marital relations, he retains more control over his sexual passion, and is thus less likely to succumb to them. His circumcision thus helps him not engage in forbidden marital relations, including relations with his wife during her period.”
If blood is the issue, he couldn’t screw his wife during normal spotting or pregnancy spotting, nor if she were ‘bleeding’ miniscule amounts (no blood supply) from the hymen as a virgin.
Frigidity isn’t possible with women, but the impotence (ED or whatever other term) does occur in mutilated men, as you’d also expect with mutilated women.
“Circumcision is a tangible reminder to all men that they are the masters of their bodies, that they are in control of their sexual urges.”
Gaslighting from a mother who hates you but likes her own prepuce where it is. It’s funny their demon is a sexy woman (Lilith) not a part of Christian lore. They are not master of their body, their mother is. Maybe Freud wanted his mother to get his foreskin back.
“Cutting back the foreskin represents tapering the self-centered nature of lust. It’s not only about me, but about another person’s dignity and desires. It’s not all about the pleasure that I want, but about the pleasure that G‑d wants me to have.”
This is written by a woman. Clearly.
“Perhaps this reasoning behind circumcision can account for the Talmud’s statement that women are born naturally circumcised. Generally speaking, a woman’s nature is not to dominate someone whom she desires. Studies show that female sexual predators make up such a small percentage that there is little known about them as a group.1 Although women may have many imperfections, it seems that they are naturally less in danger of violating the dignity of others through their lustful impulses.”
Then why are most rapists circumcised, when it’s measured?
“Both men and women are entrusted to serve G‑d with dignity and consciousness. At the core of this service is the challenge to infuse meaning into the most mundane aspects of our life. To imprint the covenant on our physical body. And perhaps it is in this arena that women are naturally gifted. This gift of “natural circumcision”—the perspective of fluidity between the holy and the mundane—empowers (and obligates) women to become leaders. In the era preceding the global redemption, when the schism between what is worldly and what is G‑dly will vanish, feminine leadership is vital.”
Women also have a prepuce. It evolved in both sexes for biological purposes, including pleasure.
Does she own shares in a lube company?
She basically admits that partially castrating men keeps them in line as husbands (less adultery, in theory*) and makes them less masculine (well, yeah). That isn’t FOR them….
*Since they can’t bond with the wife, they seek other people.
Also, the American divorce rate is tied to circumcised men. As they get older and “need” Viagra (like Israel, how odd!) they start to doubt the wife’s attractiveness, as does she, causing separation.
A guy says about “rupturing the hymen” as women’s circumcision in the comments…. no. Not how it works. In the rare cases a woman has no gaps in hers, it must be surgically perforated to allow menstrual blood out. It goes from an antibacterial barrier for the safety of a baby to ….a more flexible antibacterial barrier. It only disappears from easy sight once a woman has given birth for the first time. Even in virgins (say a nun), it does break down over time, it isn’t just exercise, time itselfthins it because, again, no blood supply.
That’s why surgeons can cut it with a scalpel to release old menstrual blood and the girl won’t bleed to death.
It’s kinda like those extra fingers that naturally drop off.
Women aren’t even born with the same thickness of membrane, it ages uniquely between women, so this discussion is really stupid. Women aren’t all the same, medically!
“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”
Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!
“Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”
Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone! They wouldn’t DARE.
What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!
Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.
“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”
Er…. that’s well above average.
Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.
“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″
Men are spreading it.
If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.
“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”
If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.
“Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″
So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.
Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
“HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4
If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….
Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”
Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.
They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.
Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.
So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk compensation.
Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.
Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.
One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″
“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”
That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.
“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”
Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?
“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”
Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.
It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.
Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.
“Laumann et al.  found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.
Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.
In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males .
Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies. Difficulty finishing, medically.
Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females .”
I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.
In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.
“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) .”
That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all.
Great profit margins for the lube companies though.
“The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite .
Yep, it’s a punishment.
Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.
Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.
The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”
“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”
So… the circumcised are bad in bed.No wonder American women don’t orgasm.
Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.
Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!
It’d be easy to test.
Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?
“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin . Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”
Circumcision increases divorce risk.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.
Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.
“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”
“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”
i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.
“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)
That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.
These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.
Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.
The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.“
“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”
“When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”
It cannot be more obvious.
“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis  to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans . This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.
The one they always preferred?
This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey  and in the human clitoris .”
Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.
It removes neuroreceptors!
“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts.The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men  suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying .“
I try to warn you.
“Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”
And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.
20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe
“Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”
Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.
“A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.
Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.
The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!
I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.
To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,
the penis does not age well
while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”
“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”
Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.
“Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”
They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”
It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.
“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”
“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.
During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”
Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!
Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.
The UK, latest from newspaper article:
“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.
“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”
“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”
They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?
“It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”
I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.
Seems like it.
“A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445
We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”
“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”
Very good news, their bold title:
… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide
The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.
Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.
You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.
Religious rape isn’t legal either.
This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.
You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.
No means NO.
Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.
“The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.” “A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”
Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.
If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.
However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.
It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?
The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary! The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings. Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.
“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?
No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”
“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”
“Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”
“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.
Losing the death penalty is a mistake.
As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12
Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.
Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.
In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”
Prison doesn’t work.
We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.
page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type
Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?
“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”
“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”
Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.
“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”
Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.
And divorced men.
“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”
Let idiots get divorced!
“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”
R-selection, lower quality per child.
“And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65 This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”
I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!
And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.
“The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.
This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”
You lost the war.
You know you did.
“A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°
No, it’s because they’re mixed race.
That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.
Okay I had to post this one thing, just this one thing.
Watch the lengths they’ll go to. Now it’s sure, there’s a link (under-*)reported by the victims themselves between being raped as a child and being ‘gay’ as an adult, but we can’t prove causation. We’re not, like, social scientists.
As for saying there’s no link to orientation, well, technically that is true because orientation theory is Victorian bullshit picked up by Kinsey to justify University expenses on rentboys. Yeah, gay ones. Twinks, apparently.
Fact: Nothing in the definition of homosexuality (<3%) mentions age.
From the only study I can find to dare measure this, mentioned here with other data, ~30% child abusers are homosexually-oriented (quantifiably, their proven targets/victims were the same sex). That’s a whole order of magnitude at least, it’s significant. Nobody studies it. People who moan about this fact and worse, try to suppress it, are more offended by truth/facts than they are about rape. I said it.
Orientation theory means nothing without behaviour. If the facts are denied, the distinctions cannot be made. Orientation theory is unfalsifiable, identity is a self-involved delusion. It’s magical thinking to believe asserting X makes Y more likely in the outer world. If you didn’t feel attraction to A, you couldn’t sexually perform.
I love how they believe criminal lies where sexuality is involved. The pedophiles have a vested interest in getting a reduced sentence.
Like, rape isn’t about attraction but they magically got an erection.
Like, they didn’t choose the kid based on the sex, but they did choose that kid/s and none of the opposite sex. If only they cared so much about the child’s choice (always no, they are legally incapable of consent).
Are we meant to believe psychopaths when they say they’re harmless now? Why do these people (who rely on the consent of pedophiles to make their living interviewing them) lose all rationality when dealing with the consequences of other’s sexuality? It’s like they’re incapable of admitting there’s such a thing as bad sexuality.
They sympathize with the monsters (Real Victim card). The maternal (often paternal) instinct is misdirected to the adult criminal, instead of the formerly innocent child whose life they ruined. This is why pedophiles pretend they are still mentally children (diminished responsibility, lower sentencing) but it doesn’t occur to a child to have sex, let alone rape. They pretend to be scarred and traumatized themselves, yet somehow believe in spite of that claim causing the same suffering in another is justified? GTFO.
Feminists are happy to blame men for plenty of things, but remain strangely silent on pedophilia, which explains Rotherham neatly. The stark majority of pedophiles are men, well over 90% (similar to rape rates), and I haven’t seen MRAs try to deny this fact while casually decrying (exclusively female) feminist teachers as child abusers.
r u bein serious rn
Maths says you’re wrong. The male teachers, on solely the basis of sex, are more likely to fit the forensic profile of child abuser.
And where the admitted link between homosexuality and former abuse as a child is concerned, it’s like they all magically forget another known admitted link in behaviour called the cycle of abuse. As if pedophiles don’t recruit. What do they think half of grooming is about? One half, making the kid think they wanted rape and other half, cultish indoctrination.
It isn’t an argument that goes both ways like how they twist it in academese. A recipe bakes a cake, the cake doesn’t unbake the recipe. Nobody is saying all homosexuals are pedophiles, but by definition, if someone meets a rare (1-3%) criterion for the criminal profile of a pedophile, they are statistically more likely to be one. The same as how a drunk driver is statistically more likely to kill someone. A male fan of Celine Dion is more likely to be interested in man-meat.
Still, no one looks into the microbiome and how it informs sexual behaviour, because Gay Germ Theory is crazy, right?
And it’s not just the skin that envelops the male sexual organ that’s inhabited by microbes:
can you say weeping sores?
researchers continue to identify bacteria that dwell within the urogenital tract, a site once considered sterile in the absence of infection.
A short, sharp HA! in your general direction.
Some of the anaerobes commonly found on the uncircumcised penis and on occasion inside the male urogenital tract are the same species associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV) in women, said Liu, lending support to the idea that male and female sexual partners share genital microbiota.
Dare you to study homosexual partners, considering the infamous hatred of condoms.
DOUBLE FUCKING DARE YOU.
There is active change with every sexual partner. Proven.
“We know that it is not sterile, and some scientists think that some of the bacteria found in semen may be involved in male fertility issues.”
Mother Nature hates r-types, male sluts too. Cite Darwin now, wife-fuckers.
But why only study men? Surely the MRAs and MGTOWs want equal science funding to know how their bad lifestyle choice is making them infertile?
Right guys? I mean, you can’t only want the science that makes you look good and avoid what triggers feelbads, that would be sexist. And the male version of Trigglypuff.
Almost all of the surveyed men who were predominantly or exclusively gay were circumcised. This does not imply that circumcision tends to predispose men to homosexuality!
It literally does. If you have evidence against, go for it.
There were two factors at work here. In the Net group gay men were mostly North American, and therefore likely to be circumcised.
That can be controlled for but assuming it was because you didn’t express otherwise, the prevalence still suggests a link.
Among the Australians only half were done as infants (the same as for our sample as a whole) – but most of the others had later had to be cut, because of infections under the foreskin. Gut bacteria are the commonest cause of these infections, and anal sex (in the pre safe-sex days when this survey was done) is one way these bacteria can get under the foreskin. So it is infections, rather than preference, that accounts for the scarcity of uncircumcised gay men.
This whole paragraph.
Okay, but no big studies, you say? Nothing recent?
Imagine taking a course of antibiotics and suddenly finding that your sexual preferences have changed.
Imagine if a specific infection reaches the brain during childhood pre-pubertal development #gaygerm
“This idea was dramatically confirmed when he gave the insects a dose of antibiotics. Immediately, their sexual bias disappeared and they were just as likely to mate with flies from either group.”
What if the lower number of gay people in modernity is due to all the antibiotics in the food?
Wouldn’t that be ironic?
You wanted ‘clean’ food, right California?
“It’s possible that the bacteria influence the levels of sex pheromones that affect the fly’s attractiveness, either by producing those chemicals themselves or stimulating the fly to do the same. That’s not too far-fetched: bacteria can alter the smells given off by many animals, and smell certainly affects sexual behaviour…. Antibiotics brought the levels of these chemicals down to similar levels.”
But remember, questioning the Pink Mafia makes you anti-science.
The science is settled TM.
For the MGTOWetc who’ll dispute any of this and continue to misuse Muh Evolution as if they were born with XYZ and choice never factors into the matter of sexual consent (scoff).
In any case, the study suggests that you can’t understand an animal’s evolution simply by considering the evolutionary pressures that act on its genome. You also have to consider the genes of the bacteria and other passengers that live inside it, which also create variations in its behaviour and affect is chances of survival. Sharon calls this the hologenome – the combined genes of a host and all the microbes it contains.
Enough for one day. Back to melting in this heatwave.
Neuroanatomist Dr. Ashley Montagu states that an area of “normal” skin the size of a quarter (U.S. 25-cent piece) contains more than 12 feet (3.66m) of nerves and over 50 nerve endings.* The illustration at right shows that at least 15 U.S. quarters can fit upon the area of tissue represented by an average adult foreskin. Infant circumcision likely deprives the adult male of about 240 feet (73.2m) of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings. Since Dr. Taylor’s research suggests that the foreskin is more densely nerve-laden than “normal” skin, a circumcised man likely loses many times more than 1,000 nerve endings.