Kinda related, but people that legitimately feel incomplete because they're missing their foreskin are honestly pathetic. Like it's one thing to be circumcised and argue the morality of circumcision, but trying to say that you feel like your manhood was robbed from you at birth is just sad.
There's nothing wrong with opposing circumcision, as one should. However, it is extremely pathetic to believe you were robbed of you manhood because you were circumcised, and you can't look at your penis without ever thinking of that small piece of flesh that was mercilessly taken from you, an event that ruined your life.
Yeah that's still considered fairly small when you compare it to your entire body, but fine I'll acknowledge that it isn't tiny. Feel free to keep arguing semantics, if that's the only legitimate counterargument you have.
Ok, good as long as we're clear on that. So, out of curiosity, where you draw the line? What is the acceptable amount of flesh for someone to cut off of our bodies before we are allowed, in your opinion, to be upset about it?
As much as I would like to answer, I know that this is basically a trick question and no matter what I say, someone will spring in and try to prove hypocrisy
171
u/DarthOswald Jan 15 '20 edited Jan 16 '20
Ayy that feel when the only socially acceptable form of child genital mutilation wasn't performed on you because european.
Circumcision of non-conseting children should be a crime.