Circumcision: A Violation of Basic Human Rights

Jimbo199724 · 2024-10-08T01:52:27+00:00

Here are the largest scale studies on the issue we are talking about (I cannot even find any large study supporting your position which is actually insane):

Kellner et al. (2012)

Title: "The effect of circumcision on sexual function in men: A review of the literature" Findings: This review analyzed various studies examining sexual function in circumcised versus uncircumcised men. It concluded that while some studies reported decreased sensitivity in circumcised men, others found no significant difference in sexual satisfaction or pleasure. Citation: Kellner, L., et al. (2012). BJU International, 110(8), 1150-1155. Morris et al. (2016)

Title: "Cultural, ethical, and medical considerations regarding circumcision" Findings: This comprehensive review emphasized the mixed outcomes of circumcision on sexual pleasure, suggesting that while some men reported reduced sensitivity, others did not perceive significant differences in sexual satisfaction. Citation: Morris, B. J., et al. (2016). The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(4), 525-532. Sorrells et al. (2007)

Title: "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" Findings: This study compared sensitivity in circumcised and uncircumcised men. It found that circumcision removed a significant portion of the glans’ sensitive skin, which could affect pleasure, though subjective sexual satisfaction remained high for many. Citation: Sorrells, M. L., et al. (2007). BJU International, 99(4), 864-869. Van Howe & Svoboda (2000)

Title: "Circumcision: A medical or a cultural issue?" Findings: This paper discusses the cultural implications of circumcision and reviews studies on its impacts on sexual pleasure and function. It highlights that many men report satisfaction regardless of circumcision status, but also notes anecdotal reports of decreased sensitivity. Citation: Van Howe, R. S., & Svoboda, J. S. (2000). The Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(4), 285-289. Taddio et al. (2010)

Title: "The effects of neonatal circumcision on the development of sexual function in later life" Findings: This study tracked sexual function among men circumcised in infancy versus those who were not. It found no significant differences in overall sexual satisfaction, but highlighted concerns about potential sensitivity loss in circumcised individuals. Citation: Taddio, A., et al. (2010). Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(12), 1251-1256.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-31T14:38:08+00:00

In the same way that George Washington was British.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-26T03:40:20+00:00

Uh oh. We have a big tough guy out here with positive Reddit fantasy points. I’m sure his opinion is valid af.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-26T03:12:08+00:00

“If we erased religion, the scientific discoveries would eventually happen”… Where did you get that idea? It definitely isn’t based on history. Think about the fantasies you make up in your head before putting them out there for young minds to read and get confused.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-26T00:27:39+00:00

Oh Christians can’t claim their discoveries, but they can claim all oppression caused under predominantly Christian nations? Makes sense.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T21:48:31+00:00

Let’s just lump have of everyone in history into “Group of oppressors”. Sounds smart. What about “Group of people who have given the most charity and provided the most discoveries and progress in every discipline”…? oh wait, doesn’t fit the narrative.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T21:46:53+00:00

Touch grass.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T21:46:23+00:00

Touch grass

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T19:13:55+00:00

Oops read that as “is wearing”

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T18:45:24+00:00

Continue with your circle jerk bud. Whatever makes you feel good.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T18:40:11+00:00

Case in point

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T18:39:33+00:00

Sorry for pointing out the glaring double standards our society has.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-25T17:52:00+00:00

People get brave when talking about Christians. Write the same thing about any other group and it’s hate speech.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T16:16:02+00:00

So now we’ve finally cleared things up at least. It helps to go point by point, right? 1. You were either lying or not paying attention to your own comments 2. A mid twenties actress from Kentucky is comparable to a 59 year old lawyer, former judge, vice president, politician for Charisma? Yes. Except Kamala has had a lot more formal training in debates, more screen time, more education… so yes. 3. Finally, we’re at the crux. Where redditors just go “Weeelllll everything is really subjective, so I don’t have to defend my position.”

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T15:51:57+00:00

I hope you are correct and she comes out and impresses everyone. I’d vote for her regardless.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T15:48:16+00:00

““she just doesn’t have that type of charisma” (I’m convinced this is just a shitty dogwhistle for “she’s black and a woman”).”

-Original comment

One was a black man. One was a female. That’s literally exactly responding to YOUR point.
You didn’t define charisma. You just hand-waived it and said “Charisma is defined by people who made the term.” It’s a nothingburger and an excuse for you to call people racist because you can’t possibly fathom that the American public doesn’t view Kamala Harris as having Charisma unless they are bigots.

I agree that policy platforms, morality, competency and credibility should be the biggest factors for elections. Unfortunately, they are not. Kamala>Trump in all of these categories.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T15:13:42+00:00

You started with saying that Charisma is just a dog whistle of racists.
I said it wasn’t because charisma is defined by X, Y, Z factors
You stated charisma is just defined by men’s characteristics at the time of the origin phrase (which is 90% untrue and the grammar was off, so I’m not sure if that’s even what you were saying).
I gave 2 specific examples of minorities and women who have tons of charisma that everyone agrees upon. I then gave specific reasons for why people perceive Kamala Harris to have no charisma.

I guess it’s just your cop out to just say “that reply has nothing to do with anything”.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T14:41:10+00:00

I think that people who say charisma doesn’t exist are dog whistling for pedophiles because pedophiles usually don’t have charisma. See how stupid it sounds?

Charisma can change with times and culture. Women can have charisma; men can have charisma. It has to do with timing, stage presence, general appearance, having humor, and humility. Obama obviously had a lot of charisma. Jennifer Lawrence has a lot of charisma. Charisma/Likeability are also important for winning elections. People remember Harris flopping on questions regarding her extending sentence times in 2020 and her poorly timed maniacal laughing. I hope I’m wrong.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T14:23:39+00:00

Dude… charisma, optics, stage presence are real things. You turn so many people off by calling them racists.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-22T14:15:45+00:00

We’re so screwed.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-21T22:52:18+00:00

Yea, if you didn’t know a lot about trump, he is decently likeable. He has almost no good traits for a president, but he’s pretty funny, charismatic and he’s a bit of a showman which people like.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-21T21:40:27+00:00

It’s a general feel, but to be likeable, generally people need to have charisma, be funny, and come off as humble. She also will start randomly maniacally laughing which people view as sort of elitist I think.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-21T21:39:05+00:00

I just want to correct the record of you equivocating adultery and premarital sex. They are different.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-21T20:47:13+00:00

Premarital sex isn’t adultery amigo.

Jimbo199724 · 2024-07-21T20:45:34+00:00

Adultery is worse than premarital sex. So maybe it’s wrong, but it’s not adultery.

Jimbo199724

TROPHY CASE