You Have The "Religious Liberty" To Suck Baby Dicks

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
panhead said:
Um what i " Think " circumcision is , are you kidding me its a cruel , highly painfull procedure that desensitizes the penis leaving it 4 x less sensitive & leaves the child in agony , you must approve of female circumcision as well if you approve of its use on males .
Click to expand...
why would i approve of female circumcision?

ya know, you can actually answer my straightforward question. does the circumcised cock look disfigured and mutilated?

some of the vaccinations i got as a kid left me in agony and pain too. moot point.
 
panhead

panhead

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
that's an actual "sincerely held" religious belief practiced by a small, small percentage of the most orthodox jews on the planet.
besides the health risk it poses, there is nothing wrong with it at all.
there are a lot more things on the list for condemnation ahead of metzitzah b'peh.
Click to expand...
Being an orthadox jew justifies the act & somehow makes sense of the act ?

The same whack job orthadox jews believe waving a live chicken around their heads 3 times somehow magically transfers all their sins into the chicken before they slaughter the bird , its all making sense now :lol:



Here chicky chicky chicky :lol:
 
panhead

panhead

Well-Known Member
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Sloppy,

Fetal development proceeds from a standard template, so men have nipples because women need nipples to rear infants. No nipples, no more humans.

Same reason there is a "seam" in your scrotum, well maybe not "your" scrotum since you seem to be nutless, but for most human males there is a seam because the scrotum follows the same developmental process as a girl's vagina but diverges to seal up and house the balls.

Every element of your body has a function. Amputating a non-consenting infant's parts is mutilation. Having yourself circumcised as an adult is not mutilation.

What do you suppose the circumcision rate would be if it was left to individual adults to decide for themselves? I would guess it to be less that 0.1%.

Fun question: do you know a man who actually opted to get circumcised as an adult? I do!
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why would i approve of female circumcision?

ya know, you can actually answer my straightforward question. does the circumcised cock look disfigured and mutilated?

some of the vaccinations i got as a kid left me in agony and pain too. moot point.
Click to expand...

Because you are an amoral, baby mutilating, progressive who think dead babies belong in the trash. Why wouldn't somebody like you approve of mutilating female babies?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Because you are an amoral, baby mutilating, progressive who think dead babies belong in the trash. Why wouldn't somebody like you approve of mutilating female babies?
Click to expand...
that's cute coming from a KKK member lie yourself.

maybe go snitch on some more people, rat.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Damn there's a lot of dumb up in here.

Circumcision will eventually be faded out, religious leaders will still find a reason to suck baby cock.

A coccyx not only bears a lot of weight, especially in sitting, it's where tendons, ligaments and muscles are attached. Remove your coccyx and you will have to perform several transplants and will never walk right again.

An appendix holds healthy bacteria and feeds the digestive system. It replaces what we lose when we have diarrhea.

nipples are formed before that Y chromosome and testosterone develops so we all get those. They are also an erogenous zone, so it's a bit surprising some religious nuts didn't decide to cut them off centuries ago.
 
AlecTheGardener

AlecTheGardener

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why would i approve of female circumcision?

ya know, you can actually answer my straightforward question. does the circumcised cock look disfigured and mutilated?

some of the vaccinations i got as a kid left me in agony and pain too. moot point.
Click to expand...
Members may have suggested you approve of female general mutilation because it serves the same purposes as male genital mutilation, commonly called circumcision.

In male genutal mutulation the foreskin is removed.

In female genital mutilation it can go much further, infibulation, removal of the clitoral head. Specifically I am referring to the removed of labia or clitoral hood tissues in this instance.

The removal of the clitoral hood or labia can be directly compared to the removal of a patient's foreskin.

Almost universally the world has agreed that female genital mutilation is not acceptable, it is harmful and serves no purpose.

What does removing the foreskin accomplish? Very little. Cleaning is easier, but who is lazy enough not to clean behind their ears let alone their penis? Silly argument if that is used as a 'pro.' Other then that there is significant evidence that not having a foreskin reduced the likelyhood of acquiring many STIs, this is actually quite true. The foreskin is of course, skin, during high friction sex micro tears appear in the foreskin and increase the chances of STI transmission.

So. Removing part of a person's body without permission so that can have ONE benefit that could be nullified by using condoms is completely silly.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
AlecTheGardener said:
Members may have suggested you approve of female general mutilation because it serves the same purposes as male genital mutilation, commonly called circumcision.

In male genutal mutulation the foreskin is removed.

In female genital mutilation it can go much further, infibulation, removal of the clitoral head. Specifically I am referring to the removed of labia or clitoral hood tissues in this instance.

The removal of the clitoral hood or labia can be directly compared to the removal of a patient's foreskin.

Almost universally the world has agreed that female genital mutilation is not acceptable, it is harmful and serves no purpose.

What does removing the foreskin accomplish? Very little. Cleaning is easier, but who is lazy enough not to clean behind their ears let alone their penis? Silly argument if that is used as a 'pro.' Other then that there is significant evidence that not having a foreskin reduced the likelyhood of acquiring many STIs, this is actually quite true. The foreskin is of course, skin, during high friction sex micro tears appear in the foreskin and increase the chances of STI transmission.

So. Removing part of a person's body without permission so that can have ONE benefit that could be nullified by using condoms is completely silly.
Click to expand...
My circumcised penis looks awesome...but no mouths came near during the procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top