Jane ❤️ Kev & Maria

Puny mutilated man:

Actually, puny mutilated man, this is where you're wrong. Saying "don't cut a baby's genitals" is the exact opposite of pedophilia.

bsky.app/profile/fore...

Pleasure gain? Glans flaring? Stop hiding behind anecdotes and optics. Cutting healthy, functional tissue from a non-consenting infant is mutilation. Permanent loss of sensation and anatomy isn't debatable, no matter your studies.

"I feel so much more now they removed the most sensitive part."
- R

@cut-greek.bsky.social You really can't hide it, you're hungry for infant penile mutilation, aren't you? Like a moth to a flame, a predator to its victim, like a mohel… oh, that's so disturbing!

So your answer: parents can amputate healthy, functional tissue from a non-consenting child for any reason they deem sufficient. That's exactly why every credible medical ethics body in the developed world rejects it.

You still haven't justified why a healthy infant's genitals should be cut at all.

No. Medically indicated surgery addresses a problem, like removing an inflamed appendix. Non-consensual removal of healthy, functional tissue is mutilation. Same tools, but different intent, necessity, and ethics.

Why do you keep blurring that line?

Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?

That's the difference between you and every major medical ethics body in the developed world, they understand that context and consent matter. Removing healthy tissue without consent is mutilation. Treating a genuine medical problem is surgery. Same tools, different ethics.

Stop projecting!

Doing Oxford now, okay.

If removing the most sensitive, functional part of the penis without consent isn't disfigurement, what is? Anatomical reduction is permanent. Sensory loss is permanent. That's both disfigurement and disability, whether you like the words or not.

How about an answer?

Interesting. You accuse me of projecting while you're projecting your own hostility onto me.

Still waiting for your answer: Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?

Predator says what?

How out of touch are you? Maybe read what I wrote again before replying.

I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you. Repeating long, evasive posts doesn't clarify anything.

Focus on the topic: circumcision without medical need is mutilation, nothing more.

Question: Why circumcise infant boys?

If my son ever required circumcision for a true medical reason, I would tell him the truth, that without medical indication, it is mutilation.

You do not even have CCR5Δ32. As a Nordic woman I am far more likely to carry it, yet I am not arrogant enough to think it excuses recklessness. This is about genital mutilation, and you have yet to defend it without grasping at irrelevant straws.

91% of #men...

You didn't have to say it, you threw it into a circumcision discussion as if it bolstered your point. That's called shifting the goalposts. CCR5Δ32 doesn't make you safe, it makes you complacent, and complacency spreads infections faster than any foreskin ever could.
How out of touch are you?

CCR5Δ32 (a rare Northern European, not Greek, genetic mutation) has nothing to do with circumcision (genital mutilation) and doesn't protect from all HIV strains or other STIs.

Reckless "predator" talk just spreads disease.

How about you answer the question instead of dodging with false equivalences?

If circumcision worked as claimed, why would condoms still be necessary?

It thinks it's immune to "most HIVs" and calls itself a "selective predator." That's not confidence, that's delusion mixed with creepiness and exactly the mindset that spreads infections.

There are two words for people like that: One starts with R, the other with P.

You are seriously desperate to justify infant penile mutilation.

Bragging about being a "selective predator" doesn't make you sound smart, it just makes you sound creepy.

Why are you still trying to claim infant penile mutilation isn't mutilation? Removing healthy, functional tissue from a non-consenting person is exactly that. No study or "African trial" changes the ethics: consent matters, and the right to bodily integrity isn't up for debate.

The global mainstream rejects infant circumcision: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc. Consent isn't extremist, it's basic ethics.
Deflecting to antivax comparisons just shows you've run out of arguments.

Ok, let's have a look...
gitnux.org/condom-use-s...

The U.S. has higher condom usage and mass circumcision, yet still has HIV rates 5–6x higher than intact countries like Denmark or Sweden.

Are you using condoms on your dick or just for blowing up?

If circumcision is performed without medical indication, it is mutilation.

Mutilation is exactly what it is: an irreversible removal of healthy tissue without consent. Words do not harm men; it is the trauma and loss caused by the procedure itself. If you cared about men’s souls, you would respect their right to stay whole instead of defending needless cutting.

HIV Diagnoses, Deaths, and Prevalence: 2025 Update Data on HIV diagnoses, deaths, and prevalence in the US.

If circumcision worked, why does the US, with mass circumcision, condoms, and SexEd, have higher HIV rates than intact Europe?
US: 0.34%
Denmark: 0.06%
Sweden: 0.05%
Your argument dies on real-world data.

www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhs...

I’m not comparing circumcised men to disabled people. Cutting a healthy body part without consent is mutilation. Using rare medical cases to justify routine infant surgery is dishonest. My son's right to bodily autonomy matters more than your need to defend scars.

Redundancy isn't justification for amputation. The foreskin isn't vestigial, it's functional, protective, and erogenous. Comparing it to earlobes is anatomical nonsense.