Видео

Yeah, the chance is 1 in 200,000.

Penile cancer is a very very selden cancer and when, then in the senior age. The chance for vulvarcancer is 4 times higher.

@@mirjaml2249 The chance is almost non-existent.

Yeah, and that is of course pure nonsense.

@@ThomasEdefiell-du4zp oh, so data is ‘pure nonsense’ if it doesn’t confirm to your worldview. You sound like a leftist.

​@@1RamToughWell, when it comes to the number of cases of STIs and UTIs, the figures are lower in Europe where they do not practice this custom and trust me my friend Europe knows better! Cases of penile cancer are equally extremely low for both circumcised and intact (1 in 100,000 which also only affects men 60+).

@@ThomasEdefiell-du4zp “Europe knows best” riiiiiiight.

​@@1RamToughWell, my friend! I totally agree haha

Probably because circumcision imposes strict gender roles & promotes the idea that men & boys are both dirty & tough.

Hyggelig å høre :)

Same here, dude. If I ever have a son, he isn't getting circumcised. In 15 or 20 years after his birth, if he wants to be, I'll even pay for the operation l, but until then, he'll have his foreskin.

Baby boys who are not circumcised face a 10-fold higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI) in their first year than boys who are circumcised and a 23% increased risk of UTI through their lifetimes. Urinary tract infections include infections of the kidneys, bladder, ureter, and urethra and are more common in the first year of life. Adverse effects can include kidney scarring, fever, pain, and septicemia.

@@cks7548 I'm sorry, I think you were forcibly circumcised. This is a psychological moment.

@@etherzon I got circumcised during adulthood, and I felt better after it was done.

@@cks7548 The point is, you were given the choice.

im circumcised and this is true i literally cant feel shit down there whatsoever

In Turkey they convince children with lies, gifts and money. In Philippines and Indonesia, children are also forcibly circumcised, but in these two countries the children are not rewarded.

ignorance and herd behavior, when public opinion is more important than child's wellbeing this shit is unstoppable

Any mutilation or forced circumcision is unacceptable and is a violation and abuse of the genital integrity of the minor. And Jewish circumcision is the forced mutilation of the foreskin of the newborn baby which is unacceptable and an obvious violation of the genital integrity of the baby which is sacred.

To circumcise someone who can't give consent is an abomination. It's totally unethical to do that. It's not only unethical to cut healthy babies it's harmful as well, when doctors circumcise they: - amputate the most erogenous part of their body (the foreskin), - remove 50%+ of their penile skin, which (a) prevents a normal gliding mechanism which makes intercourse more pleasurable for both partners, and (b) may cause painful and tight erections, - permanently expose their glans. It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin. By being exposed to friction of clothes it becomes keratinized over time, leading to loss of sensation and erectile dysfunction.

What is commonly referred to as "FGM" or female circumcision encompasses several variations just as there are several varied types of male circumcision; male circumcisions are further broken down into two categories (infant/adolescent and adult based on development [of the penis] and the actual procedure for each, further considered by the applicable culture). The clitoris serves no function in the procreative process and it has no function in voiding urine from the body; in retrospect, the male penis does serve a vital function in the procreative process AND does void urine from the body. The removal of clitorises and the sewing of labia occurs MINIMALLY worldwide by comparison to male infant deaths by circumcision and botched circumcisions of male infants and adolescents in the U.S. alone; you also fail to realize or recognize that ALL male infant/adolescent circumcisions result in permanent and irreversible alterations of a penis’ form and function. Since 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics' FULL reports, inclusive of its 2012 full report, reaffirmed in 2018, has been suggesting/recommending that MALE INFANTS AND CHILDREN BE LEFT INTACT so that THEY (the male person possessing the subject penis) can make the decision when/after THEY reach adulthood (age 18) and THEY can sign the surgery consent form themselves. HIS BODY = HIS DECISION... There IS a legitimate comparison to the most common forms of FGM and female circumcision to male circumcision since, as said above, circumcision is an alteration by definition and is most often performed without the owner's consent and, as well, without anesthetic or the anesthetic is not given proper time to work prior to the surgery.

Too bad you only got 1 like plus mine, your comment deserves thousands of likes but these people don’t know any better and right away theyll say their not Jewish or religious…I was just about to say something, it’s in the Bible and it’s what’s best for all males…

In the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 53), Jesus was asked, "Does circumcision help or does it not?" He said, "If it helped, boys would have been born already circumcised." Why don't Muslims and Jewish circ their daughters [if it's so reverent]? Are not your female population worthy of Salvation and Purity?

Do you not know how to wash? You're such a typical brainwashed fool believing everything you see online. Smegma only builds up if you havent washed in months, you'd rather cut to not deal with cleaning under the foreskin? That's just lunacy and disgusting

News flash... Foreskin can be retracted at any time to reveal undamaged glans and shaft. The common damages of male infant/adolescent circumcision (i.e., meatal stenoses, skin-bridges, horrible or misaligned circumcision scars [offsetting the Raphe], twisting/curving in any direction, early onset of E.D., etc.) have become "normalized" over the years. These risks are virtually absent when Adult circ occurs. Mess with body parts that are not developed or fully developed and there will be retarded development and arrested functioning. Most circ'd males just accede to using erectile assistive/maintenance devices and/or using pharmaceuticals such as Viagra/Cialis or Trimix. Someone who has been circ'd at birth and claims to have NOT had any “problems" is equivalent to someone being black or Latino and claiming NOT to have ever experienced racism. Another news flash... The male foreskin is no more "unclean" than a woman's labia, clitoris and vagina (which ALSO produces smegma and other filth). Cleaning an intact penis is easier than cleaning female parts, and it is easier than cleaning ears and washing the hair on top of your head. In the U.S. where circumcision of males is most common, there are more FEMALES with smegma (albeit, "unclean" by some inept perspectives) than there are males with smegma. Take your mom's, sisters' or gf’s/wife’s feminine cleaning products and throw them in the trash -- and watch them go completely Apesh!t. In the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 53), Jesus was asked, "Does circumcision help or does it not?" He said, "If it helped, boys would have been born already circumcised."

lol i call it the p-do surgery

Takk for tilbakemeldingen :)

believers, they could believe everything

And dang right imma going to do this for my son period✌️

@@michellelugo8583 you’re a disgusting woman and mother

​@@SimplehumanMale-ue5iqIt's incredible women like her would rather do this to their own sons for aesthetics and not deal with washing under their baby's foreskin. It's a gross level of inhuman

Hey girls, my grandmothers, mother, aunts, female cousins, wife, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and daughters, etc., tell me that the best choice their mothers made for them was letting them be born. Another news flash... The male foreskin is no more "unclean" than a woman's labia, clitoris and vagina (which ALSO produces smegma and other filth). Cleaning an intact penis is easier than cleaning female parts, and it is easier than cleaning ears and washing the hair on top of your head. In the U.S. where circumcision of males is most common, there are more FEMALES with smegma (albeit, "unclean" by some inept perspectives) than there are males with smegma. Why not throw out your feminine cleaning products -- and you'll go completely Apesh!t. Have you ever considered that most males who undergo circumcision at birth develop a feeling of anger and shame and resentment in having that circumcision done without their consent. They often feel like they've lost their bodily autonomy and they are misunderstood very frequently by both society and medical professionals. LMFAO - Your sons [and their wives/girlfriends] may actually end up alienating/exiling you from your grandchildren. Since 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics' FULL reports, inclusive of its 2012 full report, reaffirmed in 2018, has been suggesting/recommending that MALE INFANTS AND CHILDREN BE LEFT INTACT so that THEY (the male person possessing the subject penis) can make the decision when/after THEY reach adulthood (age 18) and THEY can sign the surgery consent form themselves. If there were truly any "benefits" and the "risks of acquisition" were factually reduced, insurances and/or MedicAid would pay for the procedure if/when done as Adults rather than insurances and/or MedicAid considering circumcision to be purely "elective" or "cosmetic" once/after the lad reaches adulthood.

​@@SimplehumanMale-ue5iq Yeah, for real Michelle's an ignorant slattern. I also watched a vid of some dumb american parents who said that they would definitely have their son's circumcised/mutilated partly because they couldn't be bothered to teach their son to wash his own willy when he's older.

Beware - the social pressures to circ sons it really intense... My wife was HIGHLY pressured, persistently, by her family, her female co-workers and friends throughout our five pregnancies (NOT by any medical staff) AND even after our 3 sons were born -- to the degree that she committed suicide before the oldest was 10 and before the youngest was 1 y/o. Don't cave to the pressures. Since 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics' FULL reports, inclusive of its 2012 full report, reaffirmed in 2018, has been suggesting/recommending that MALE INFANTS AND CHILDREN BE LEFT INTACT so that THEY (the male person possessing the subject penis) can make the decision when/after THEY reach adulthood (age 18) and THEY can sign the surgery consent form themselves. If there were truly "benefits" and the "risk of acquisition" is reduced, insurances and/or MedicAid would pay for the procedure if/when done as Adults rather than insurances and/or MedicAid considering it to be purely "elective"/"cosmetic" once/after the lad reaches adulthood.

You're not a man you shall let your husband decide

@@MOMMY_OF_FOUR88 Most males also do not know, or will not admit to, what circumcision does (or the risks). There are more moms-to-be who do the "research" than there are males who will do the research. Most males will just resign themselves or accede to what was done to them as being "normal". The common damages of male infant/adolescent circumcision (i.e., meatal stenosis, skin-bridges, horrible or misaligned circumcision scars [offsetting the Raphe], twisting/curving in any direction, early onset of E.D., etc.) have become "normalized" over the years. These risks are virtually absent when Adult circ occurs. Most males who have had MIC/RIC will not usually admit to any of these normalized damages due to, understandably, embarrassment and the likelihood of being ostracized, ridiculed, shamed, punned and gaslighted. Urologists are 4x more likely to see circ'd patients related to the damages of MIC/RIC than they are likely to see Intact male patients for medical reasons; and, sex therapists are recently reporting that they are seeing more and more circ'd male patients in their 20s!! The initial challenge is for the affected/impacted adult male "patient" to make the admission to himself that there is a problem; he then has to gather the courage to openly state the problem/s to a competent provider he trusts (getting past the female receptionists/"gate-keepers" first). Omitted from the "common damages" of MIC/RIC/MGM mentioned above are nerve pain, damages to the suspensory ligaments, corpus cavernosa and/or corpus spongiosum, painful erections, amputation of the glans, death of roughly 120 infants per year in the U.S. alone and roughly 16K suicides by teen and young adult males due to botched circumcisions. Since 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics' FULL reports, inclusive of its 2012 full report, reaffirmed in 2018, has been suggesting/recommending that MALE INFANTS AND CHILDREN BE LEFT INTACT so that THEY (the male person possessing the subject penis) can make the decision when/after THEY reach adulthood (age 18) and THEY can sign the surgery consent form themselves. If there were truly any "health benefits" and the "risks of disease transmission/acquisition" were factually reduced, insurances and/or MedicAid would pay for the procedure if/when done as Adults rather than insurances and/or MedicAid considering circumcision to be purely "elective"/"cosmetic" once/after the lad reaches sexual maturity and adulthood.

⁠bro what ?

@@cks7548 these is a reason to have foreskinn, if someone wan t he can do it by own will not by someone's choice

@@marksamindu1234 Circumcision is not a big deal, it doesn't cause any problems, and it has a lot of benefits. Males who got circumcised as a baby didn't lose any rights. Men have bodily autonomy, women do not. Men still have more rights than women do, and that needs to change.

It's more dangerous for a male to be uncircumcised than it is for him to be circumcised.

@@cks7548 sensibility will reduce having circumcised however , when they get older they will decide best for them.

@@cks7548 as i said it can reduce sensibility , they will decide whats good for them when they get older . and what rights does men have that women don t ?

Don't they use local anasthaesia?

​​@@catherinebirch2399 it would still hurt, and using a h'wee shot of local anaesthesia doesn't make unnecessary infant genital mutilation any more morally nor ethically right.

@@luke14946 I've had teeth drilled with a local anaesthetic and it is painless. Foreskin are ugly and unnecessary. They collect all sorts of gross secretions underneath them. Circumcision isn't nearly as bad as a tonsillectomy. Thousands of chilfdrenbwere subjected to these in the 50's and 60's for no good reason. I Don't hear anyone.protesting.about that.

@@catherinebirch2399As long as people aren’t doing it to infant babies when it is actually not medically necessary. Anything besides that should be made heavily illegal and punished severely under the law.

you can see how medically necessary this shit is: one nation, 0,1% cut in north korea, 80% cut in south korea and they started it only after ww2, same in usa. just some brainwashing and voilà.

What?