If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Sun) Weeners Eins, zwei, snippa   (torontosun.com) divider line 27
    More: Weeners  
•       •       •

7144 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2012 at 2:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-11 12:41:02 PM
8 votes:
We don't allow people to do the same thing to girls for religious (or other reasons), we shouldn't be allowing this to be done to little boys.

A) "health benefits" - dubious at best... more easily attained by showering and wearing condoms. 'studies' that support this shown to have methodological flaws and cannot be replicated in first world countries
B) "tradition" = bs. FGM was tradition too
C) "religion" = bs. FGM was religious too
D) "i prefer cut ones in appearance!" - some guys prefer girls without labia too
E) "but but but smegma!" - it's called A SHOWER

i could drop a few pages of data on this subject right now.. but last time i did it didn't get anywhere anyway.

i'm out of this thread now. FLAME ON
2012-10-11 03:23:56 PM
3 votes:
Can I give my baby a tattoo to make it look better? No? Then why can I chop bits off of it?
2012-10-11 03:42:27 PM
2 votes:

zippolight2002: So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis


No change in functionality? Don't cut guys need to use lube to jerk off? Suckers! Think of all the money we intact guys save never needing to buy lube!
2012-10-11 03:10:39 PM
2 votes:

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Girls are disfigured and mutilated to prevent them from enjoying sex. Boys are mutilated for cleanliness to prevent them from enjoying sex.

/personality counts


Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (this guy is largely responsible for its prevalence in the US)

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible." (from Maimonides, largely responsible for its continued popularity among Jews)
2012-10-11 02:43:14 PM
2 votes:
I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.
2012-10-11 02:42:55 PM
2 votes:

Kazan: We don't allow people to do the same thing to girls for religious (or other reasons), we shouldn't be allowing this to be done to little boys.

A) "health benefits" - dubious at best... more easily attained by showering and wearing condoms. 'studies' that support this shown to have methodological flaws and cannot be replicated in first world countries
B) "tradition" = bs. FGM was tradition too
C) "religion" = bs. FGM was religious too
D) "i prefer cut ones in appearance!" - some guys prefer girls without labia too
E) "but but but smegma!" - it's called A SHOWER

i could drop a few pages of data on this subject right now.. but last time i did it didn't get anywhere anyway.

i'm out of this thread now. FLAME ON


a) Male and female circumcision are not equivalents
b) Anger won't make your foreskin grow back.
2012-10-11 02:35:57 PM
2 votes:
Yeah this thread should be about as fun as getting the tip of your dick cut off
2012-10-11 05:45:37 PM
1 votes:
GungFu
Knobloch


Oh, c'mon! Might as well used Mike Hunt, Roger Datass or Gene Masseth.


Well, considering that "Loch" is German for "hole"...


/"Knobloch" actually sounds like an older spelling of "Knoblauch" (German for "garlic")
// Magrat Garlick unavailablr for comment
2012-10-11 04:42:31 PM
1 votes:

AmytheIntactivist: Kazan..."F) Straight girls and gay guys agree . . . cut cock tastes better."

which one are you commenting as?

I'm a straight girl and my intact husband is the cleanest and most enjoyable man I've been with.
My mother says the same thing about my father, also intact.


www.miataturbo.net
2012-10-11 04:35:15 PM
1 votes:

Marcintosh: not to over state the obvious buuuut, by the time you're old enough to read this, it's too late. No prosthetic foreskin exists so far as I know. . .

but if you want to prattle on about one thing and another don't let me stand in the way.

All my dogs are spayed or neutered too, so I got that goin' for me.


You'd be surprised if you Google the term "prosthetic foreskin" - they exist, but can't be anything like a real one. There is such a thing as foreskin restoration, though.
2012-10-11 04:32:34 PM
1 votes:

thunderbird8804: Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (this guy is largely responsible for its prevalence in the US)


He wasn't the first.

Long before Kellogg was even born, in the 1830s or 40s, there was a French physician by the name Claude François Lallemand who wrote about the dangers of seminal losses (sometimes called "spermattorhea") and the need to prevent masturbation by extreme measures such as circumcision. Supposedly his work was translated into various languages, and disregarded by everyone except a few doctors in England who subsequently influenced doctors in the USA. Here's a Link and another Link, and there have been various references in books written about male sexuality.
2012-10-11 03:56:13 PM
1 votes:

pedobearapproved: Kazan: We don't allow people to do the same thing to girls for religious (or other reasons), we shouldn't be allowing this to be done to little boys.

A) "health benefits" - dubious at best... more easily attained by showering and wearing condoms. 'studies' that support this shown to have methodological flaws and cannot be replicated in first world countries
B) "tradition" = bs. FGM was tradition too
C) "religion" = bs. FGM was religious too
D) "i prefer cut ones in appearance!" - some guys prefer girls without labia too
E) "but but but smegma!" - it's called A SHOWER

i could drop a few pages of data on this subject right now.. but last time i did it didn't get anywhere anyway.

i'm out of this thread now. FLAME ON

a) Male and female circumcision are not equivalents
b) Anger won't make your foreskin grow back.


Assault and murder are also not equivalents. They are both still wrong, however.
2012-10-11 03:51:05 PM
1 votes:

RobSeace: zippolight2002: So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis

No change in functionality? Don't cut guys need to use lube to jerk off? Suckers! Think of all the money we intact guys save never needing to buy lube!


Touche. Not only money, but lube is a pain in the ass to clean up.

/intentional
2012-10-11 03:43:12 PM
1 votes:
Cutting tissue off infant genitalia to prevent unlikely health problems arising years if not decades later.

Seems legit.
2012-10-11 03:36:00 PM
1 votes:

pedobearapproved: AmytheIntactivist: Kazan..."F) Straight girls and gay guys agree . . . cut cock tastes better."

which one are you commenting as?

I'm a straight girl and my intact husband is the cleanest and most enjoyable man I've been with.
My mother says the same thing about my father, also intact.

EWWW, you talk to your mother about her giving your father head?
EWWWWWWWWW!!!!!


Um, yea, it's come up before. Part of being a mature adult is being able to talk about sex with your friends. My mother is my friend. She's also the one that taught me that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of and we shouldn't go altering ourselves (much less our children) to please others.
2012-10-11 03:31:27 PM
1 votes:

AmytheIntactivist: Kazan..."F) Straight girls and gay guys agree . . . cut cock tastes better."

which one are you commenting as?

I'm a straight girl and my intact husband is the cleanest and most enjoyable man I've been with.
My mother says the same thing about my father, also intact.


EWWW, you talk to your mother about her giving your father head?
EWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
2012-10-11 03:07:49 PM
1 votes:
Sigh. I remember when fark had actual weeners links.
2012-10-11 03:04:00 PM
1 votes:

12349876: zippolight2002: 12349876: zippolight2002: GungFu: zippolight2002: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.


Then again, (if snipped as a baby) you've never had a foreskin long enough to appreciate the difference. So rationale is as invalid as Nic Cage's birdhair.

It's like if you had your ears sliced off at birth. To which on Fark you'd most likely write: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is. Sorry, what?

So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis, is just as vital as having ears? That analogy makes no sense.

What about tonsils and appendixes? Don't need those. Let's ditch them at birth so the baby won't remember and there's no future health problems.

Now I think you're trollin.

It's a slippery slope argument. Where do we stop? Let's go ahead and fix hook noses at birth too. Why should circumcision be the only "appearance" thing that should be done at birth without consent?


actually you're the one using the slippery slope fallacy.
2012-10-11 03:02:56 PM
1 votes:

12349876: zippolight2002: 12349876: zippolight2002: GungFu: zippolight2002: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.


Then again, (if snipped as a baby) you've never had a foreskin long enough to appreciate the difference. So rationale is as invalid as Nic Cage's birdhair.

It's like if you had your ears sliced off at birth. To which on Fark you'd most likely write: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is. Sorry, what?

So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis, is just as vital as having ears? That analogy makes no sense.

What about tonsils and appendixes? Don't need those. Let's ditch them at birth so the baby won't remember and there's no future health problems.

Now I think you're trollin.

It's a slippery slope argument. Where do we stop? Let's go ahead and fix hook noses at birth too. Why should circumcision be the only "appearance" thing that should be done at birth without consent?


Because it's not major surgery, like fixing a hooked nose, and taking out appendix's?
2012-10-11 03:00:14 PM
1 votes:

zippolight2002: 12349876: zippolight2002: GungFu: zippolight2002: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.


Then again, (if snipped as a baby) you've never had a foreskin long enough to appreciate the difference. So rationale is as invalid as Nic Cage's birdhair.

It's like if you had your ears sliced off at birth. To which on Fark you'd most likely write: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is. Sorry, what?

So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis, is just as vital as having ears? That analogy makes no sense.

What about tonsils and appendixes? Don't need those. Let's ditch them at birth so the baby won't remember and there's no future health problems.

Now I think you're trollin.


It's a slippery slope argument. Where do we stop? Let's go ahead and fix hook noses at birth too. Why should circumcision be the only "appearance" thing that should be done at birth without consent?
2012-10-11 02:56:37 PM
1 votes:

zippolight2002: GungFu: zippolight2002: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.


Then again, (if snipped as a baby) you've never had a foreskin long enough to appreciate the difference. So rationale is as invalid as Nic Cage's birdhair.

It's like if you had your ears sliced off at birth. To which on Fark you'd most likely write: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is. Sorry, what?

So the look (which is key, as it doesn't change the functionality) of your penis, is just as vital as having ears? That analogy makes no sense.


What about tonsils and appendixes? Don't need those. Let's ditch them at birth so the baby won't remember and there's no future health problems.
2012-10-11 02:49:01 PM
1 votes:

zippolight2002: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is.



Then again, (if snipped as a baby) you've never had a foreskin long enough to appreciate the difference. So rationale is as invalid as Nic Cage's birdhair.

It's like if you had your ears sliced off at birth. To which on Fark you'd most likely write: I'm quite happy that I'm cut. Not sure what the big deal is. Sorry, what?
2012-10-11 02:46:10 PM
1 votes:

Kazan: We don't allow people to do the same thing to girls for religious (or other reasons), we shouldn't be allowing this to be done to little boys.

A) "health benefits" - dubious at best... more easily attained by showering and wearing condoms. 'studies' that support this shown to have methodological flaws and cannot be replicated in first world countries
B) "tradition" = bs. FGM was tradition too
C) "religion" = bs. FGM was religious too
D) "i prefer cut ones in appearance!" - some guys prefer girls without labia too
E) "but but but smegma!" - it's called A SHOWER

i could drop a few pages of data on this subject right now.. but last time i did it didn't get anywhere anyway.

i'm out of this thread now. FLAME ON



F) Straight girls and gay guys agree . . . cut cock tastes better.



/ just sayin'
2012-10-11 02:43:05 PM
1 votes:
I like my snipped ding-a-ling!
2012-10-11 02:38:50 PM
1 votes:
I get that ding dongs are supposed to be that way in nature so it's cool if you have it an all, but please PLEASE clean the damn thing out before going out to the club.
2012-10-11 02:38:16 PM
1 votes:

Kazan: We don't allow people to do the same thing to girls for religious (or other reasons), we shouldn't be allowing this to be done to little boys.

A) "health benefits" - dubious at best... more easily attained by showering and wearing condoms. 'studies' that support this shown to have methodological flaws and cannot be replicated in first world countries
B) "tradition" = bs. FGM was tradition too
C) "religion" = bs. FGM was religious too
D) "i prefer cut ones in appearance!" - some guys prefer girls without labia too
E) "but but but smegma!" - it's called A SHOWER

i could drop a few pages of data on this subject right now.. but last time i did it didn't get anywhere anyway.

i'm out of this thread now. FLAME ON


covered all my arguments as well.
2012-10-11 02:37:39 PM
1 votes:
Done in one.

It's somehow horrifying when it's done on girls, yet it's OK to do it on boys?
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report