Jane ❤️ Kev & Maria
@foreskingirlx.bsky.social
I've no issues being labeled antisemitic by those who mutilate children's genitals!
Post your dick in public - expect public opinions!
#Intactivist #BanInfantCircumcision #CircumcisionMyth
Status: Married
Post your dick in public - expect public opinions!
#Intactivist #BanInfantCircumcision #CircumcisionMyth
Status: Married
Puny mutilated man:
September 11, 2025 at 11:42 PM
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.
September 11, 2025 at 11:41 PM
Actually, puny mutilated man, this is where you're wrong. Saying "don't cut a baby's genitals" is the exact opposite of pedophilia.
Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?
August 15, 2025 at 6:51 PM
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
"I feel so much more now they removed the most sensitive part."
- R
August 15, 2025 at 6:50 PM
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
"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!
August 15, 2025 at 6:45 PM
@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.
You still haven't justified why a healthy infant's genitals should be cut at all.
August 15, 2025 at 6:35 PM
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.
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 do you keep blurring that line?
August 15, 2025 at 6:28 PM
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 do you keep blurring that line?
Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?
August 15, 2025 at 9:19 AM
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!
Stop projecting!
August 15, 2025 at 9:17 AM
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!
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?
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?
August 15, 2025 at 9:13 AM
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?
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?
Still waiting for your answer: Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?
August 15, 2025 at 9:04 AM
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?
Still waiting for your answer: Why circumcise infant boys without medical need?
Predator says what?
August 14, 2025 at 4:08 PM
Predator says what?
How out of touch are you? Maybe read what I wrote again before replying.
August 14, 2025 at 4:08 PM
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?
Focus on the topic: circumcision without medical need is mutilation, nothing more.
Question: Why circumcise infant boys?
August 13, 2025 at 9:30 PM
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?
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.
August 13, 2025 at 9:28 PM
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.
August 13, 2025 at 9:24 PM
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.
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?
How out of touch are you?
August 13, 2025 at 1:45 PM
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?
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.
Reckless "predator" talk just spreads disease.
August 11, 2025 at 4:07 AM
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.
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?
If circumcision worked as claimed, why would condoms still be necessary?
August 11, 2025 at 3:51 AM
How about you answer the question instead of dodging with false equivalences?
If circumcision worked as claimed, why would condoms still be necessary?
If circumcision worked as claimed, why would condoms still be necessary?
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.
Bragging about being a "selective predator" doesn't make you sound smart, it just makes you sound creepy.
August 9, 2025 at 11:16 PM
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.
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.
August 9, 2025 at 11:14 PM
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.
Deflecting to antivax comparisons just shows you've run out of arguments.
August 8, 2025 at 6:42 PM
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.
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?
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?
Condom Use Statistics Statistics: Market Data Report 2025
Our in-depth Market Data Report about Condom Use Statistics. Explore the latest data.
gitnux.org
August 8, 2025 at 6:37 PM
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?
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?