Foreskin Man Outrages Jewish Community

Is this going to become one of those recurring topics, like "UFOs dont exist! Prove me wrong!", "holocaust didnt happen!", "moon landing was faked"? Are we really adding Penis to that list?Because this is not the first thread about it. How long now till circuncised and uncircuncised men describe their personal genitalia, hygienes and sexual flavors, sharing too much information?

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

What is even stranger, is that people presume to pass judgment on parents, their physician, their church, and their baby, all of whom they have no knowledge.

Uh, yeah. I'd call into question the wisdom of parents who wanted to make their daughter's vulva more sexually appealing by giving her collagen injections, too. Or how about that one story not too long ago, the mother who bought her five year old a boob job. I'm sorry but yes, when you set about to shop up your own child so the kid can be more visually appealing to you, that's something I'm going to stand against. I'm going to pass judgement on you as the person trying to sculpt your child with a knife, I'm going to call judgement on the doctor for agreeing to a cosmetic procedure on an unwilling patient, I'm going to call out the church for its infatuation with prepubescent genitals,and I'm going to stand in defense of the child these other three groups want to carve up.

Even if all I know about you is that you want to snip off bits of your kid so his dick can look like how you want it to look, then I don't really need to know more. This is not a deep and complex issue; your kids are not accessories that you can snip and trim and shape to match the latest fashions.

You guys are making far more of this than it is. It's an elective medical procedure. There are reasons for it.
In no way should it be made into a political football. It's a private matter, and so should it remain.

imho

A cosmetic alteration performed on an unwilling patient is not elective.

I can see why. They are portraying a Jewish tradition as something evil. I usually reserve 'anti-Semitic' for those who really hate Jews. And I believe that Foreskin Man, hates Jews.

This is f'd up.

reply to post by amazed


Is penile cancer anywhere near as common or deadly as, say, breast cancer, lung lancer, prostate cancer, etc? And, as you seemed to ignore, I questioned whether there is actually a real link between foreskin and penile cancer. What about having foreskin makes you more likely to get penile cancer? I have a friend who had cancer, and he wore a lot of hats, do hats cause cancer?

Why are you even talking about female genital mutilation? Did I bring that up? I don't remember bringing that up. Care to quote me? EDIT: Looking back it appears I did comment how both actions are wrong and should be considered mutilation. I think my point is pretty easy to understand, though, cutting off parts of a child's body without their permission is wrong, unless there is a serious reason for doing it. Since the benefits of circumcision are debated, I will continue to feel that it's wrong.

Removing a woman's clitoris is not the only thing done during female genital mutilation, as you seem to understand, but considering I didn't bring up any of the other practices I have no idea why you felt the need to. I brought up the comparison of cutting off a man's foreskin with cutting off a woman's clitoris. Not once did I compare cutting off a man's foreskin with the entire act of female genital mutilation.

And how can I compare removing a woman's clitoris with removing a man's foreskin? Because you are CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF AN UNWILLING CHILD'S BODY. Do you REALLY not understand that? Can a baby consent to having it's body cut up for whatever reason? NO.

So carry on with your veiled insults, and straw-man arguments all you want. But you aren't going to convince me it's OK to cut up a little baby boy. Sorry.

Originally posted by SSDDay
reply to post by James1982

 

You need to go away, for good... Lol pure ignorance...

Why, and where, would I go away? I have just as much right to voice my opinions here as anyone else. So thanks, but no thanks, I won't be going anywhere.

And would you care to point out exactly what makes me ignorant? Having a different opinion than you doesn't make me ignorant. If I stated something that was incorrect, that would be ignorance. So far, I have only offered my opinion, I would appreciate it if you would explain what comments of mine you consider to be ignorant?

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN

I don't care what others think, if they want to cry "anti-Semitic" then that is their problem not mine. I for one want my foreskin back.

If God wanted me to have a small penis then let him make it so, otherwise leave it alone. Who are those that say they are doing God's will, how arrogant!

I still think the comic is blatant satire of both sides of the debate. Its making fun of the Jewish stereotype- not real life Jews. Its supposed to be humorous only in the way that its taking such a mundane issue and turning it into a superhero comic. Christ, I have no sympathy for the Jewish people whining about this. And the fact that the media is sympathizing with them and agreeing that its oh-so-horrible is ridiculous. Again: its satire.

Satire.
Satire.
Satire.

The depiction of the Jewish people is obviously tongue-in-cheek, as if its saying "LOL! Those Jewish people are so evil, right?" in a sarcastic tone. I understand that the illustrator is clearly anti-circumcision, but that doesn't mean he's some anti-semetic Nazi. He had to adapt the issue into a cliche superhero saga and simplified into "Jews: bad guys, Foreskin Man: hero".

I guess common sense doesn't exist anymore after stupidity fills the consensus opinion.

So removal of the foreskin has no advantage to sexual pleasure always thought that was the main idea. Every back paddle the cap normally fall forward and when you drive the bicycle forward the cap blows back, hence you only enjoy half the ride of the bicycle, would not know if true this is rumors I heard huh?

Out to ask how many grown men are thankfull to had this done as baby bet you most would say, thank you. Any males complaining having there foreskin cut of as baby?

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Do you believe that a fetus has a right to life, should they be given that choice or should the mother make that decision? It's pertinent because I don't think one could be pro choice and pro circumcision at the same time. I know this is a sticky area and if you prefer not to answer I understand - but I do think it's relevant and there is some hypocrisy in saying that a mother has a choice to abort or not but an infant does not have a choice on whether or not they lose something that can never (reconstructive surgery doesn't count, it's never going to be the same) be regained.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Well put and seconded.

Originally posted by thestupidguy
So removal of the foreskin has no advantage to sexual pleasure always thought that was the main idea. Every back paddle the cap normally fall forward and when you drive the bicycle forward the cap blows back, hence you only enjoy half the ride of the bicycle, would not know if true this is rumors I heard huh?

I personally think that is a rumour, only because I would believe an uncovered exposed area would have a thicker bit of skin then a closed in uncovered one, kind of like a callous (minds out of the gutter people *pulls mine out* lol) on there, and therefore less sensitivity to touch according to how far under the skin those receptors are for touch. My conclusion that circumcision is not going to increase sexual pleasure physically in anyway.

Foreskin man is awesome....I'm glad San Francisco is voting to ban circumcision, that's one small step in the right direction. Nobody has the right to alter a perfectly healthy child's genitalia. If that child wants to get circumcised when he's older...that's entirely up to him, and not his parents.
There is simply no substantial evidence that circumcision prevents cancers or disease. The types of conditions that circumcision is supposed to prevent can be simply avoided with proper hygiene and care.
Anti-Semite? That's even more ridiculous...Get off your high horses already...we're not buying it!
Way to go San Fran!

lol omg...

If there has ever been one race of people who are over zealously butthurt about almost everything it would be the jewish community...I hear the word anti-simetic thrown around way too often to the point where I know most just use the word as a means to get what they want...made me laugh regardless though...the fact that they compared it to the nazi propaganda made me giggle a bit too...

I think Foreskin man is a timely reminder that circumcision poses a risk to the 8 week old baby. They can die of cardiac failure, the wound being infected et. with such a disease as meningitis. The death here is listed usually as meningitis so it hides the initial cause which was circumcision. But throughout the ages a number of little 8 week old boys have died from a would deliberately inflicted.

Under Jewish Law if 3 sons die from circumcision, you needn't do the 4th. The fact the 4th son is given a reprieve indicates that perhaps circumcision is ot the byall and endall of faith. (Jewishcircumcision.org)

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by thestupidguy
So removal of the foreskin has no advantage to sexual pleasure always thought that was the main idea. Every back paddle the cap normally fall forward and when you drive the bicycle forward the cap blows back, hence you only enjoy half the ride of the bicycle, would not know if true this is rumors I heard huh?

I personally think that is a rumour, only because I would believe an uncovered exposed area would have a thicker bit of skin then a closed in uncovered one, kind of like a callous (minds out of the gutter people *pulls mine out* lol) on there, and therefore less sensitivity to touch according to how far under the skin those receptors are for touch. My conclusion that circumcision is not going to increase sexual pleasure physically in anyway.

Let's think about this for a minute. The removed section of skin contains nerve endings. By cutting off this section of skin you are reducing the amount of nerve endings that can 'Feel'. The surface area for sensory perception has been reduced thus reducing the experience of touch during sexual intercourse. There are also other problems associated with circumcision and pain experienced with prolonged erections.

The question I have is why is it still done? The only answers I have been given have to do with religious reasons and hygiene. As for the religious reason this appears to be for the appeasement of a god through sacrificing of the flesh in which the infant is most definitely an unwilling participant.

why do people argue about male circumcision. yes its against the kids free will because he doesnt know whats happening. but when have you ever had someone who was "cut" complain about it?

I guess all the mohels are up in arms. I hear they get paid 100 grand a year plus tips.

Circumcision isn't all bad. Sometimes it can be used somewhere else. I once heard this kid was born without eyelids so they circumcised him and used his foreskin as eyelids. It worked out great he had great foresight but was a bit cockeyed.

reply to post by Devino


Another reason as to why there's little credibility in the statement of circumcision gives more sensation.

I wont bother saying what people should or shouldnt do, in the end I would hope to phase it out and let nature decide if the human race should have one or not, its main intention being another (one of many) protection feature of the human body (and animals). My mother decided that it was unnecessary for and she didnt consent, and her reasoning was her own personal belief in god, that what he made is what he intended and who are we to physically change it.....she also added "Did they used to fall off or something if we didn't?"
Im glad my mother decided to make her own choice, and I would hope people can still make the choice but know consequences of either choice.

Originally posted by amazed
Because male circumcision, which is NOTHING compared to female genitalia mutilation... reduces pretty much completely the chances for cancer. Not to mention all the other positives of male circumcision. Do a little research before you try to pretend that male circumcision and female mutilation are equal. They are not.

Harm None
Peace

Cutting skin off reduces the chances of cancer?! Where in the world did you hear this?

More and more countries are now going back to promoting natural way, no cutting. I agree, maybe it doesn't look as sleek but the benefits and protection is there for a reason. Then again we live in a society where everything needs to be pretty, without regard for safety.

But back to the comics - does this not remind you of the Muslims freaking out about Muhammad in a bear suit comic. Once again, further proof that all religious fanatics are the same.

Khar

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by amazed
Because male circumcision, which is NOTHING compared to female genitalia mutilation... reduces pretty much completely the chances for cancer. Not to mention all the other positives of male circumcision. Do a little research before you try to pretend that male circumcision and female mutilation are equal. They are not.

Harm None
Peace

Cutting skin off reduces the chances of cancer?! Where in the world did you hear this?

More and more countries are now going back to promoting natural way, no cutting. I agree, maybe it doesn't look as sleek but the benefits and protection is there for a reason. Then again we live in a society where everything needs to be pretty, without regard for safety.

But back to the comics - does this not remind you of the Muslims freaking out about Muhammad in a bear suit comic.

Once again, further proof that all religious fanatics are the same.

Khar

Lol at the 'sleek' comment. Lets turn this positive, lets call it a convertible