Lawren Jones


This conversation is closed.

The Pros and Cons of Male Circumcision

Why are both proponents and detractors so passionate about male circumcision?

To me, it's a civil rights issue. No one (not even the parents) should make such an intimate, irreversible decision about about another's body. To others, it's a health issue. As an older male who is not circumcised, I have trouble understanding the health concerns. I'd love to hear your thoughts for or against.

  • Aug 2 2012: The principle is clear, First, do no harm.

    Circumcision is a surgical procedure that is clearly harmful.

    If there is no clear scientific evidence that circumcision is necessary or beneficial, then it is just mutilation and should be considered a crime. The American Medical Association recently adopted a policy to oppose making circumcision a crime, saying that this is a medical decision. Show me the data or go to jail.
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2012: Why don't you look for the data yourself? There is plenty out there.
      • Aug 3 2012: I will. But my point is that the burden of proof is on the AMA and any physicians that circumcise.
    • Aug 4 2012: Here's one way to summarize it: With widespread male circumcision, we are violating the individual somewhat, but we end up with a better, more civilized, society. This was discovered long ago, and it still holds true today.

      There are many examples where individuals are involuntarily harmed for the common good. Taxes, for one. Although admittedly circumcision is much more stark and personal.

      The notion of actually banning circumcision is not an interesting discussion, because it's just not in the realm of possibility in the US.

      I support the status quo: it is the parents' decision whether their baby boy is circumcised.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2012: Maybe this is too much information, but from personal experience, I feel that an injustice was done to me when I was circumcised at birth. I should have had the right to decide if part of my body was to be cut off or not. If a minor does not have the judgment to consent to sexual activity, he certainly doesn't have the judgement to consent to body modifications. Unless a doctor and a second opinion confirm an immediate danger to the boy's health, the decision should be left up to him once he becomes an adult. I've heard the argument that the dad wanted his son to "not be worried about being different than his dad." This argument does not justify this action. We don't approve of female genital mutilation, sometimes called female circumcision, so there is precedent to hold the same opinion about male genital mutilation.
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2012: I work in the field of infection prevention and I am told that there are disease considerations for the female partner of an uncircumsized man however, equally not wishing to be indescreet I have never been with such a man because it must be the norm for men in my own age range to be cirsumsized and I have not got a lot of experience of such things. Even so, I would never have a son of mine done again unless there were COMPELLING life long consequences for him..
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2012: Surprisingly this is something i have thought deeply about. When I gave birth to my first son, I had not really known much on this topic and at the time the societal sentiment was against it and I thought I would go with that but my dad and my husband"s dad were very vehement that it should be done. So I agreed. The paediatrician was dismayed but arranged it and told me that if I ever had any more boys they would all have to be done.
    I gave birth to a second son 4 years later and walked down to be with my baby shortly after he was cirsumsized. My beautiful baby -all 9 lbs 14 oz of him was trussed to what seemed to me to be a turkey carving board crying. They had let me into that area against their better judgment because I was such a" sensible" woman. I bent to put my cheek to his, my finger in his howling mouth and he started to suck for comfort. I almost passed out from the horror of seeing him like that and I bled all over the floor but did not pass out. and I think it was because as a young mother they would have had to kill me to get me to leave him alone and in danger again.
    I thank you so much for the chance to share how awful it was for him and to a far lesser extent very horrible for me. No wonder they left me alone with him -I a pacifist might have done something drastic to anyone who tried to assault that child again or anyone who I felt misled me into torturing my son by proxy..

    My twins sons were born 3 years later and we went through hell with an attempted breech birth of an 8lb 8 oz boy and one who almost died who was 8; 14 oz. We all almost bought the farm that time and I was not putting these babies who had been through so much pain through a circumcision. They have never been done so I have 2 and 2. And they have all survived their differences and my seeming inconsistency.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Here's the thing Mr Barker. The earliest anecdotes of circumcision coincide with starting to wear clothes. Perhaps once you put on a loin cloth your foreskin becomes detrimental as its protective function is no longer required and the humid air that gathers under your loin cloth encourages growth of bacteria. Otherwise how can we explain the persistance of such a specific and seemingly bizzare practice in such disparate and seperate cultures?
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2012: It actually has evolutionary roots. African tribes and Australian aboriginal tribes have been circumcising for tens of thousands of years. A circumcised male is much less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. Remember it is only recently we discovered anti-biotics reducing gonorrhea, syphilis, and other bacterial STDs to an inconvenience rather than a death sentence. The only relevant infection now is HPV which causes pre-cancerous changes. In AUS we now offer a vaccine for this to all 15 yearolds. Of course the medication isn't available to everyone, so if I lived in a third world country I would circumcise my children. But I don't so I didn't.
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: That's a valid point about third world health concerns. I wish we could dispense of the practice in the developed countries.
    • Aug 2 2012: According to Wikipedia:
      "The Royal Dutch Medical Association stated in 2010: "There is currently not a single doctors' organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons.""

      Seems like there is no clear evidence about medical benefits?
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2012: Did you read the whole page?
        In pre-history there must have been some evolutionary advantage or the practice wouldn't be so wide spread.
        • Aug 2 2012: We have many traditions and customs that were put in place due to limited knowledge, certain beliefs and superstition.

          "The origin of male circumcision is not known with certainty. Various theories have been proposed as to how it began, including:[citation needed]
          As a religious sacrifice
          As a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood
          As a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility
          As a means of enhancing sexual pleasure
          As an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical
          As a means of marking those of higher social status
          As a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration
          As a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors
          As a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors
          As a means of removing "excess" pleasure
          As a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women
          As a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain
          As a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen
          To copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader"

        • Aug 3 2012: If there was an evolutionary advantage, you wouldn't be born with a foreskin. Once the evolutionary need for something wains, the something slowly disappears.
          From the evolution point of view we are just recently out of walking naked on the savanah.
          So think of it as a eyelid for your penis.
          If you want the reasons for circumcision, look to societal pressures, inclusion into the adult world, etc.
          Everything else is just made up rationalizations
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2012: As a general rule a tradition that occurs independantly in many locations and persists must have some sort of evolutionary advantage. For example, many indigenous peoples undergo painful rituals as an entry into manhood. The ability to withstand the pain indicates to a prospective partner that the individual can deal with difficult situations. This makes him a more reliable provider and is an indicator for the successful raising of offspring. ie evolutionary advantage
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2012: If you want to cut your foreskin off that's fine that's my view.
    And I agree with you fully, that parents should not even dare to cut the foreskin off their child for no reason other than religious. It is disgusting and euphemistic to even call it circumcision, let's call it what it is, it's the forced genital mutilation of the young. This disgusting act's sole reason is to numb the sexual organs or sexual pleasure, as religion is the main reason for such an act, and as religion is obsessed with sex this is just another means of controlling the bodies of others.
    Firstly, there have been cases where children have died from infections caused by genital mutilation though very rarely. If you look at the NHS page on this almost every comment is from an adult male saying how they were circumcised and now either find sex too painful, or can't even get erect.
    Allowing it for the largely jewish community opens the gates for the muslim community who take part in female genital mutilation, where the outer labia and clitoris are removed. This disgusting act, has no health benefits and should be utterly pursued as evil by all secularists.
    Health reasons I've heard, reduces chances of getting cancer, logic here is that you've less cells so less chance of getting cancer, counter logic, if you get penile cancer and it's in the foreskin then you can easily cut it off then and the cancer's gone.
    Reasons where it's medically suitable for a circumcision. If the foreskin is too tight on a child and make cause permanent damage or examples and conditions which may cause similar effects.
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: I can respect circumcision for religious reasons, even while passionately disagreeing with it. If my spiritual beliefs placed me into the Muslim or Jewish faith, I would not hesitate to follow that rule with my children. But I befuddled and horrified by the number of circumcisions performed on male infants with no profound reasoning behind it. I have to think that the father was circumcised at birth, so he thinks of it as normal, which becomes a perpetual cycle whose meaning is lost.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: I can't respect it on religious reasons at all, I think it's the one time where we drop our common sense and our moral ground, it's taboo to criticise a religions beliefs and worse if you tell them what they can and can't do. This view has to change. This logic is horrific, someone could invent a religion which allows all sorts of atrocities and we'd have to leave it be because it's religious. Although that's a form of a slippery slope argument and it isn't very strong why not go up the slope and say that te circumcision is wrong end of.
        Also what kind of argument from design is that? Babies are not born beautiful they're born ugly and need to be sawn a bit necaue the handy work of god is such garbage. It is a callous attempt at ruining one aspect of a persons life and should be viewed as such, why not let the child grow up to 18 and say " you know it's traditional fr Kees to get cut" and then let the person make ip their own mind. What if they get cut and grow up to be an atheist or some other religion and their sex lives are now ruined because of a messed up genitalia .
      • Aug 2 2012: I think that if there are no medical benefits to circumcision then children should not be subject to it. This could (should?) be even considered an assault. Children should decide what to do with their body when they grow up.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2012: I can't respect the religious reasons either. Parents should also allow their kids to make up their own mind about whether religion is something to believe in or not. Also, if religion is a justification for male circumcision, it is also a justification for female genital mutilation. They are both extreme physical abuse in my opinion.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2012: You sure touched a nerve with a guy name John Allyn who is ranting on another thread about the issues discussed here. Suddenly, I am mother superior and every circumsized man has PTSD as a justification.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: Deb what's PTSD?,if it's something humorous then ok.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2012: I have maxed out on thumbs up for you Lawren but this is very helpful.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: No, Ken,it is anything but humourous. Many military men and rape victims suffer from it. It is Post Traumatic Stress syndrome. They are very hard to deal with because they appear to want everyone else to suffer as they are doing because of their memories and stresses. They are often vicious and hurtful to others because they seem to have no resiliency or hope left and they want to provoke someone to take away their pain. They might not realize that no one can do that and sometimes time does help but not unless they are willing and still have the ability to learn. They feel like the world is unsafe. However, in order to re establsh a safer world they need to have proper boundaries reestablished by others who are willing to say 'no further buddy" and that is hard to do and it is hard to try to hold that line and rebuff them if you believe they are ill.
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2012: Ah,Thankyou,i never saw the term in it's shortened state,i thought it was a humorous joke,thanks you guys.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Yes just like old finlanders or was it Norwegians use to throw hours old newborns into ice cold rivers then go down abit to see if they survived,if they did then they were strong enough to live,if they didn't then that's life,it was the same with my people before colonization,deformed or ill children was a resource negative,what do you think happened?

    You're not telling me that life is meant to be pain free? The first instance of life is pain quickly forgotten,that's why it is done when they are young.

    I use to work in a hospital and has had the privilege to witness a lot of surgery, blood was a natural consequence but these days it's very different.

    I'm not attacking you personally i'm attacking the holier than thou stance of supposed religious enforcement that is strewn through the posts.

    If the parent wants it then it's up to the parent, not the state and certainly not individuals halfway across the planet,are we to outlaw ear piercings because it hurts or eyebrow plucking or bikini waxing?(weak as those arguments are,i thought i would just throw that in for flavour),i don't know where you are in the world but here in nz i've never come across religious nutters trying to enforce circumcision for all,have you?

    Oh by the way,to any any northern europeans reading this the tradition of baby throwing is not a zero in on finlanders or other countries it's just i know it was or is practiced somewhere in northern europe somewhere i just can't remember where or if by a large group.
    • thumb
      Aug 6 2012: I think this was meant for me
      Life isn't pain free, but it's a good rule of thumb isn't it to do your best to avoid pain or causing others any pain.
      And no it isn't up to the parent, now the only think a parent should force a child to do is things which are beneficial, i.e get vaccines, eat, sleep etc etc. But cutting off the foreskin for no other reason than because a book says so. I've heard a few reasons such as some Jewish scholar's (is it spelled Mimodines?) who says it's solely to dull sexual pleasure. Now if this is the reason then it's instantly wrong.
      Now once again ear piercings and bikini waxing. Firstly kid's don't need a bikini wax so we'll say tattoos. No don't ban these, it would be stupid, like I've always said, do what you want with your body it's yours to keep. But to a child, who doesn't know the full set of circumstances around these things don't dare force them to have one. Imagine giving a child a tattoo at 5 and they grow up to hate it. Well imagine giving them a circumcision and then they realise at 16 they can't get it erect because of scarring or something. And no, no religious people try to force this onto others. Which in and of itself tells you a lot about it, it's something not many people want done to themselves.
      Main points are- It's just a male version of the muslim circumcision which is almost globally condemned
      -is unnecessary, for no good reason
      -can have long lasting consequences
      -it is mutilation no matter how advanced the tool you use
      -is forced, denies the right of choice from the perspective of the child
      And if you want a good example of barbarism at birth and a definite link to who did it, use the Spartans. they gave their kids to an old "wise" man who decided who was strong enough to live or die, those who weren;t were thrown in a pit.
  • Aug 3 2012: I think circumcision may also have a "civilizing" effect on the culture, because it makes men less sex-obsessed. That's the real hidden benefit.
    Note though: less sensitivity can make men better lovers.

    Anyway, you can't ban circumcision. It's not even a discussion. The attempts to ban circumcision have a long history, going back to the Persian occupation of ancient Israel, and up through Nazi Germany. Religious Jews are not going to stop circumcising their boys because of some law! Do you really want to take these otherwise exemplary citizens and turn them into criminals?
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: Yes, yes I do. if they cut off body parts of their young for no good reason it is mutilation.
      And you've struck the heart of circumcision, to make sex a painful chore instead of a joyful experience. And I'm pretty sure you'd be against forced female mutilation, the removal of the outer labia and clitoris.
      And yes you can ban forced circumcision. Do it to yourself if you want, if you think it makes you look better, makes you more clean or brings you closer to god then fine you do that. But don't force such a disgusting act on a young child who is barely out of the operating theater. Don't dare force a lifestyle upon someone so young. What if the child grows up to be an atheist and is forever scared by the circumcision. Humanity has to move on from these barbaric atrocities and realise that those who openly saw away at babies genitalia are monsters and need to be shown as such. Muslim or Jewish I don't care, they practice one of the most disgusting features ever invented by religion. And good on France, for taking the first step towards this as they made female genital mutilation illegal.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: Do you know any research that concludes that it is detrimental to mens health? That it affects men's mental state of being and therefore the planet? This has been practiced by cultures far older than modern man.

        What makes you think it was brought about by religion? I've never known any guy that has cried over something that they have never known or see men worshipping the once glorious loss of their foreskin?I don't see the psyche wards filled with men with foreskinitis.

        Female mutilation,that is a crime i agree but we wear our genitalia on the outside and reqiures us to keep it clean as much as possible,an uncircumcised male can be afflicted with tightening of the foreskin or an overproduction of smegma,like women we are all individuals when it comes to our bodies,not all men are the same,you're not the same as me,i'm not the same as you and so on and so on.

        Here's a thought,would you have the procedure if your wife thought your uncircumcised willy looked and smelled disgusting,therefore affecting her response to you on our intimate levels,alot of relationships have been affected by it and if a partner finds a part of you that affects them then it could turn out in a parting of ways,i say this as i have known a good friend who had the procedure because of his foreskin.He's happy as larry now.

        I really don't see any demonstrations screaming to have it back or that it has any health issues without it.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Either I wasn't clear or you didn't read anything I said. Cut your foreskin off if you want that's fine that's legal, what should be illegal is cutting of the foreskins of defenceless and voiceless children.
          And so what if it's been practiced by cultures for ages? Stretching of the penis, tying weights to the scrotum, jumping on cows, forced scarring.. All things practiced by cultures is the past and some still today. How long something has been going on for isn't an argument for whether it's good or not.
          Research- just google and you'll find hundreds of cases where hildren have either died or faced near death from infections brought upon by circumcisions carried out for religious reasons. So there you go pointless waste of life and medical staff time.
          And no I wouldn't cut my foreskin off. Almost all reports I've ever read describe pain and in quite a few the inability to even get erect. So no.
          I'll make myself clear one last time. Do what you want to your own body. But don't you dare going sawing and hacking away at the bodies of others for NO GOOD REASON, if medically it has to come off well then by all means get it off but don't dare tell me it brings a baby closer to god and expect me to treat that with respect.
      • Aug 4 2012: ...

        Wow, Stewart. So what penalty are you going to impose on those 5 million American Jews? Are you going to throw them all in prison (along with all their Christian supporters)?

        The problem with you arrogant leftie types (well, one of many problems) is that you're always picking a fight; always inventing some new stance over which to divide us and disrupt society.

        Jews, even secular Jews, have circumcised their baby boys for millennia -- even in the darkest times, when it threatened their own lives and their childrens'. Thousands of people have faced torture and death for continuing this sacred tradition -- for reasons that they don't need to explain to you.

        So what are you going to do with this enormous American braintrust? These doctors, educators, lawyers, inventors, and engineers? Are you going to imprison them ALL over your peeve with circumcision??
        Do you think you're smarter than them? You're NOT.

        Tell us, Stewart. What will you do to the 5 million Jewish Americans who will continue to circumcise their baby boys?
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2012: Well I'm no lawyer but I think it's a fair assumption that once a law is created you can't be convicted of breaking it you committed it prior to the start of this law.
          So the numbers would be a lot less. And yes I'd throw them in prison for however long a judge would for someone cutting off another persons fingers. Easy.
          The problem with your passive types is that you're absolutely willing to let all religions get away with whatever they want. I've no vendetta against Jews or Muslims, my idea encompasses everyone who would try and do this. It's a pathetic barbaric act which some people disgracefully think they've a divine warrant to do. If it's in the name of god , you've got to show me this god first and then I'll still tell you that I won't let you circumcise your child.
      • Aug 4 2012: Wow, Stewart, you're a real maniac. You would quadruple the prisoner population of the US, and eliminate this huge braintrust, just for your pet little cause. It's not like there are swarms of Jewish kids complaining that their parents circumcised them. They appreciate it and pass on the tradition. Who exactly are you protecting?

        You've made up a problem and want to drive us into the Middle Ages as part of your solution (which is really just exercising your beef with religion).

        But there's no need to argue with the likes of you. All we need to say is that there are 5 million educated, law abiding, voters here who WILL NOT abandon circumcision of boys.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Ok a few things, firstly I wonder why we don't see Jewish kids complaining, o yes that's right, they're brainwashed into believing it brings them closer to god, it's tradition all the usual pathetic excuses used by people to justify this.
          How ironic, rich and hypocritical of you to say I'm trying to bring us back to the middle ages, when you're the one advocating a bronze age tradition! Talk about a regression.
          And who am I protecting, it's more of what I'm protecting, it's the voice of the voiceless. Those children don't have a voice in this matter. How about the Jewish community swallow a giant pill of reasoning and wait until their children are in their teen's and ask them if they want to be circumcised. This is the disgusting shame I doubt you'll ever allow yourself to concede to, by giving them a choice I'm almost certain the numbers would take a significant drop. And you want to hear people complain? Go on the NHS web page for circumcision and there is hundreds more people who complain about circumcision than those who say they're fine.
          Now here's the irony and the hypocritical side to this. I'm willing to bet you think female genital mutilation is wrong as practiced by muslims where the clitoris and outer labia are removed. Yet somehow forced male genital mutilation is perfectly ok in your eyes.
      • Aug 7 2012: So, I think what you just wrote is that all these Jewish men -- who we can agree are smarter than you -- are all *brainwashed*. i.e. The most educated and intellectually productive population in America is *brainwashed*.

        Beyond the defensible medical benefits of circumcision (which do exist), what circumcision is saying is that this boy will serve a higher purpose rather than serving his base instincts. He will be viscerally bound to a tradition of literacy, morality, and the covenant with Abraham. His parents -- who brought him into this world -- make this decision for him; it is the type of child they choose to create. The world will be a better place for it.

        Coming up with some pure-reason argument like yours, and insisting the whole world change in response, is arbitrary and can justify all sorts of things -- book burnings, sterilization, taking kids away from parents, etc. Believe me that I could come up with pure-reason arguments that would very quickly trample on rights that you care about. That's why moderation and precedent actually DO matter.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: There are people who holds degrees and still think creationism has evidence, so it's very easy to be smart whilst also being brainwashed by what you're told is tradition.
          And yes there are some medical benefits to circumcision as weak as they are they still don't justify forcing it on someone else.
          You show yourself that this is pointless symbolic barbarism. It is only jews (minus the liberal ones) who see nothing wrong with their logic. it's pointless, you say it makes a bond with someone who probably never existed, others say it's sexual repression, other's say it's cleaner (which can be fixed by taking a shower).
          the root of the argument is the fact that it's pointless, painful procedure which is forced upon the weak, innocent and the voiceless.
          it's also an awful argument from design from your side if the handy work of god is so pathetic that children require a touch of sawing.
          Like I've said circumcision can have awful consequences, scarring, infection, failure to get erect. And so imagine the kid brought up jewish who turns atheist or christian or muslim or hindu and who can't have a normal sex life because of this procedure he had when they were barely out of the womb.
          Btw here's an easy way to bring up a moral kid with literacy skills without cutting anything off, teach them to read and give them books.
          You also eloquently avoided saying anything about the female genital mutilation in comparison to male genital mutilation.
          It is grievous bodily harm and there is no way around that.
      • Aug 7 2012: ...

        Why do you keep bringing up female genital mutilation? It's just a canard. No one is advocating that.

        Male circumcision is defensible medically; and I say that it improves the individual as well as the broader society. Female circumcision has no positive aspect.

        Anyway, I think I want all those Jewish doctors and researchers out there healing people and curing cancer -- not languishing in prison because they had their son circumcised. That's the stark choice, and it's an easy one.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: Why do I keep bringing female mutilation up, simple. Because it's the the exact parallel of what you're saying. If you grant it for Jews you have to be consistent and grant it for them. And look here a site which claims it has medical benefits.
          Both of you are clutching at straws. Every advocate of these things grasp at whatever tiny pathetic barely noticeable benefit there may be. You can justify any chopping and sawing with this logic as long as it's religious and has at least one weak benefit. And this isn't even a slippery slope argument, it's a follow on from logic.
          And there is no evidence at all which suggests circumcised men are better than uncut men.
          It is awful logic. This ancient book told me I must so that's why I have a right to do so, also my son will never be close to god if this part of his body remains on him. Still is an awful argument from design.
          And I want them out curing people etc too. But I want them to be smart, and truly think about their actions, and if taking a pair of scissors to their child's penis for no good reason other than a book told them to then they really need to have a hard look at themselves. I don't want criminals in society, I don't want people who think they can justify grievous bodily harm treating me, they are moral monsters.
          And all of this, male and female mutilation boils down to one thing. An ancient fear of sex. Anything which represses the feeling of sexual contact was good in the eyes of religion as sex to them was so dirty. In Deuteronomy you're to be beaten if you sleep with a menstruating women. And so back to consistency, either the book is written by a god, or by a bunch of power hungry men who realised the control they could impose over others if they just said god did it.
          You won't grant it for any other religion, only your own, I merely ask you to be consistent and join the modern secular world or your liberal brothers.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: And one other point, why is it so fundamentally wrong to leave it until they're say 16 and let the child choose whether they want to be cut or not? What's wrong with that to you? It saves the forced sawing and cutting and keeps human rights in place.
      • Aug 8 2012: I'm going to give up talking to you, because you're responding to something other than what I'm actually saying. You're saying there are "no benefits", whereas I and others have listed some. You're referring to the only justification being an "ancient book", which I never raised. And you're continuing to conflate male and female circumcision, after I just corrected you on that.

        You're disingenuous. You just want to stupefy humanity and sterilize human culture. You hate Jews because they are smarter and culturally wealthier than you -- and you think you can bring them down using the liberals' number one weapon: feigned victimhood.
        • thumb
          Aug 8 2012: WHat an incredibly stupid thing to say, not all jews are wealthier and smarter than me what a stupid thing to assert. Yes some are but not all. And I dint the jews I hate forced mutilation of the genitals. And I haven't denied that there are medical benefits, I've said they are incredibly weak and are basically redundant.
          And if course the ancient book is relavant its where Jews get the idea from.
          And no male and female gentile mutilation are not different in any form and the only difference you create us rejection of fact to support your own views.
          And I dint want to sterilise anything, you want to harm innocent young children fact.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2012: It's cleaner and to most women,nicer looking and clean.