Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, an uncut penis is fucking revolting. No offense to those men who still have that ugly wad of skin hanging off their dick, but I feel sorry for you.
The option should be up to parents, though.
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
While I think you can make arguments against male circumcision, I don't think that one works very well. Female circumcision does severe damage and serves no medical function. Male circumcision makes sex a little less fun, while providing some benefits in terms of disease prevention.
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
While I think you can make arguments against male circumcision, I don't think that one works very well. Female circumcision does severe damage and serves no medical function. Male circumcision makes sex a little less fun, while providing some benefits in terms of disease prevention.
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
While I think you can make arguments against male circumcision, I don't think that one works very well. Female circumcision does severe damage and serves no medical function. Male circumcision makes sex a little less fun, while providing some benefits in terms of disease prevention.
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
Because it's the exact same thing! I mean, there no difference in anatomy between a man and a woman!
Derp!
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
Because it's the exact same thing! I mean, there no difference in anatomy between a man and a woman!
Derp!
You would think doctors would know that, wouldn't you?
Imagine going down on an uncut bloke. I'd probably clean him first because I wouldn't trust him to do it. For a species who rarely wash their hands after a piss, do we really trust them to clean their dicks?
Plus, imagine that massive wad of skin in your mouth. You'd be better off sucking your thumb. Same feeling.
Maybe the real problem is that you are kind of a slut?
Hey now. Are men who like big boobs pigs.
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
While I think you can make arguments against male circumcision, I don't think that one works very well. Female circumcision does severe damage and serves no medical function. Male circumcision makes sex a little less fun, while providing some benefits in terms of disease prevention.
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
FWIW:
I can see both sides of the issue. I do resent how militant some pediatricians have become about the issue of not circumcising babies.
While I think you can make arguments against male circumcision, I don't think that one works very well. Female circumcision does severe damage and serves no medical function. Male circumcision makes sex a little less fun, while providing some benefits in terms of disease prevention.
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
The American Academy of Pediatrics has never endorsed female circumcision. If you actually read the portions from AAP in the link you provided (and not the blogger's crazy spin on it), you'll notice that they're not endorsing female circumcision, but instead encouraging doctors to reach out to families they think will do it to perform a ritual cut that won't harm the child, instead of them chopping off the clitoris in a back alley.
Yes, an uncut penis is fucking revolting. No offense to those men who still have that ugly wad of skin hanging off their dick, but I feel sorry for you.
The option should be up to parents, though.
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
Yes, an uncut penis is fucking revolting. No offense to those men who still have that ugly wad of skin hanging off their dick, but I feel sorry for you.
The option should be up to parents, though.
I know parents that think females should be circumcised, should they be allowed to make the decision, or is that barbaric and unconscionable because it interferes with a woman's choice?
Females were circumcised for different reasons. Duh.
Do the boy child a favor and get him cut, folks.
For the new policy statement, researchers formed a task force in 2007 to review evidence from 1,000 studies that took place between 1995 and 2010. They found that the procedure had preventive benefits, including a major risk reduction for male urinary tract infections - especially during the first year of life - and a lower risk of cancer, and heterosexual acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Specifically, risk for herpes was 28 to 34 percent lower for circumcised men and risk for HPV was reduced by 30 to 40 percent.
Based on current rates, it appears an increasing number of parents are opting to skip the procedure. A recent analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the U.S. circumcision rate fell from about 63 percent of newborn boys in 1999 to 55 percent in 2010. In the 1980s, the U.S. circumcision rate was about 79 percent of newborn boys.
A study in last week's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found the 20-year decline may have already contributed to about $2 billion in additional medical costs, for care related to treating urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases throughout a male's lifetime. The researchers say if the trend continues to where only 10 percent of U.S. males are circumcised - rates similar to Europe - the country could face about $4.4 billion in health care costs - an added $407 per man.
And a lot of unnecessary added pain.
Besides, an uncircumcised penis is fugly.
You can read the orginal policy statement here: Circumcision Policy Statement
do the boy child a favor and get him cut, folks.
for the new policy statement, researchers formed a task force in 2007 to review evidence from 1,000 studies that took place between 1995 and 2010. They found that the procedure had preventive benefits, including a major risk reduction for male urinary tract infections - especially during the first year of life - and a lower risk of cancer, and heterosexual acquisition of hiv and other sexually transmitted diseases. Specifically, risk for herpes was 28 to 34 percent lower for circumcised men and risk for hpv was reduced by 30 to 40 percent.
based on current rates, it appears an increasing number of parents are opting to skip the procedure. A recent analysis from the centers for disease control and prevention found the u.s. Circumcision rate fell from about 63 percent of newborn boys in 1999 to 55 percent in 2010. In the 1980s, the u.s. Circumcision rate was about 79 percent of newborn boys.
A study in last week's archives of pediatrics and adolescent medicine found the 20-year decline may have already contributed to about $2 billion in additional medical costs, for care related to treating urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases throughout a male's lifetime. The researchers say if the trend continues to where only 10 percent of u.s. Males are circumcised - rates similar to europe - the country could face about $4.4 billion in health care costs - an added $407 per man.
and a lot of unnecessary added pain.
Besides, an uncircumcised penis is fugly.
You can read the orginal policy statement here: circumcision policy statement
health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine
circumcision for all male newborns
Yet the same group that is telling me that male circumcision is good for me is urging doctors to consider female circumcision. That leads me to dismiss everything they, or you, have to say about it.
Embracing Female Genital Mutilation | FrontPage Magazine
The American Academy of Pediatrics has never endorsed female circumcision. If you actually read the portions from AAP in the link you provided (and not the blogger's crazy spin on it), you'll notice that they're not endorsing female circumcision, but instead encouraging doctors to reach out to families they think will do it to perform a ritual cut that won't harm the child, instead of them chopping off the clitoris in a back alley.
They are endorsing that doctors lie to their patients?
The American Academy of Pediatrics has never endorsed female circumcision. If you actually read the portions from AAP in the link you provided (and not the blogger's crazy spin on it), you'll notice that they're not endorsing female circumcision, but instead encouraging doctors to reach out to families they think will do it to perform a ritual cut that won't harm the child, instead of them chopping off the clitoris in a back alley.
They are endorsing that doctors lie to their patients?
What's the lie? A small ritual cut won't harm the child in the long-run, and could keep her parents from permanently mutilating her.
Imagine going down on an uncut bloke. I'd probably clean him first because I wouldn't trust him to do it. For a species who rarely wash their hands after a piss, do we really trust them to clean their dicks?
Plus, imagine that massive wad of skin in your mouth. You'd be better off sucking your thumb. Same feeling.
Maybe the real problem is that you are kind of a slut?
Hey now. Are men who like big boobs pigs. It's a preference thing not a slut thing.
They are endorsing that doctors lie to their patients?
What's the lie? A small ritual cut won't harm the child in the long-run, and could keep her parents from permanently mutilating her.
The parents bring a child in for a circumcision, and the doctor just pretends to do it, and you don't call it lying?
What's the lie? A small ritual cut won't harm the child in the long-run, and could keep her parents from permanently mutilating her.
The parents bring a child in for a circumcision, and the doctor just pretends to do it, and you don't call it lying?
He's not pretending. He's telling them he'll make a small cut and that's what he'd do.
