Feed on

dshugashvili makes what I consider a novel and convincing case against Male Genital Mutilation (aka circumcision): the barbaric practice robs both men and women of the white hot lust which intimately bonds them for the long haul.

plumpjack: Prior to my [circumcision] restoration, I had some great experiences – or so I thought. In hindsight, they were all experiences that centered around HER pleasure: “Boy, I really made her cum last night,” etc. But now there was a profound difference; the experiences I was having were mine. And they were damn good.

Ironically, the more pleasure I started having, the more that my partners began to have. They could sense my pleasure and this made them more excited. There is an interconnected aspect to sexual intercourse, and having genitals that function correctly is an integral part of this.

How I Restored My Foreskin


kinda off-topic for this post, but I would like to offer you my sincere congratulations for overcoming the humiliation that the Khazars and their stooges inflicted on you when you were a defenceless child. (the Khazars always prefer their victims to be defenceless; for example, they delight in shooting children along the Gaza border fence.)

apparently, it’s all part of the plan:

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. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Moses Maimonides

see also:

The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner

LOL that Maimonides thought it was a bad idea that a woman would love her man too much.

Maybe jews really are malignant masochists? The notion neatly explains some of the more dire aspects of diaspora jewish behavior in the lands of their generous Gentile hosts. From a reader,

Saw a decent argument that (((they’re))) pure masochists on a memetic level, always wanting to revisit the good old days of Deuteronomy when they fucked up on a tribal basis and needed heavy handed correction by God.

Nothing else can explain their sheer malevolence. Other middleman minorities don’t openly taunt the host populations, don’t beg for wipeout.

I disagree with that last part. I would say we are entering (for better or worse) an age in Western nations in which other minorities, taking their jew cue, openly taunt the host population. Bindis for instance have taken up the “taunt Whitey” banner with real gusto. This might not be a bad thing in the long run. NiceWhites can only take so much shit pushed in their faces before they abandon their niceness with the same gusto that their nonWhite taunters revel in their anti-White malice.

The other possibility here (to explain why circumcision was historically a jew thang), might be that the high average IQ jews inherited (thanks to occupational bottlenecks European Gentiles created to protect their hamlets from levantine imprint) conflicts with their equally inherited ravenous Middle Eastern libido, and into this unholy amalgam pitting the forebrain against the hindbrain the masochistic impulse in jews grew beyond normal bounds to accommodate the inevitable cogdis, and ritualistic circumcision was one manifestation of this internal battle. I hope this makes sense. (Maimonides seems to have understood what I’m saying.)

From that 1999 anti-circumcision research paper (brace yourselves for a poonami of realtalk):

Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newsletter. Respondents to the advertisements were mailed a survey to complete and return, the comments then compiled and the responses analysed statistically.


Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).

During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.’ […]

When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).

If a woman has accumulated enough rides on the cock carousel to have a penis preference, do not stop at Ho, do not collect nuptial vows.

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016). These women were more likely to prefer being on top during coitus to achieve vaginal orgasm (2.46, 1.21-4.98). They were also more likely to have an unaltered man as their most recent partner (1.74, 0.87-3.47).

The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners.

And finally, the coda, which could win prizes in literature:

These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own ‘bedding’ of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle’s neck glides in and out of the folder layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed agaist the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].

Of course, this is correlation and potential selection bias, so it’s possible unaltered men happen also to be jerkboy men who maximally arouse women, but the uniformity of the results at least should give the mutilated man pause, as it indicates circumcision itself reduces women’s pleasure.

It’s really a counter-intuitive argument, because most people would assume that by diminishing through circumcision the sexual pleasure and ardor a man can feel, he would be less likely to stray and satisfy his over-torqued libido with mistresses. Instead, reducing his pleasure reduces his woman’s pleasure as well, and the sexual disappointment may contribute to relationship dissolution.

Putting the results of this study in the language of our oypressors, “informed consent” means the barbaric practice of infant circumcision must end. My boner, my choice.


Comments are closed.