Why is circumcision not practiced in Poland?

I never said all of them.
Yes I know there are some that are blond.

The fact is most of them will fit into the descriptions I gave earlier.

rickyB wrote:


you know what gets you HIV/AIDS? fukcing someone with HIV/AIDS.

ewww circumcision... no thanx.

lets just have a look at some of your posts


this is clearly a reference to circumcision in the US - a topic which you might know something about as your knowledge about Polish is second hand


then your second post, which I thought was a suggestion from you that wholesale circumcision of American men is to prevent American Jews being identified should there be a future holocaust in the US. I was referring to this when I accused you of spouting gibberish.

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be impossible to tell a circumcised gentile apart from a Jew once disrobed

If you have ever seen the film Europa Europa (which is a European film so you might not have seen it) you will see that the hero who is a young Jew posing as a German soldier during the war. He is measured by a German doctor to demonstrate how Jews can be detected by measuring the shape of the head, size of the nose etc and the doctor comments on how the young man has perfect Aryan features.

So accusing me of being both an anti-semite and an English teacher in the same post - way to go

wrong on both counts -

This made me chuckle...: ) All kidding aside it certainly is true

He's 4th generation, not even second hand ;)

I guess nobody told Phillip Roth (Portnoy's Complaint) about that.

He probably meant that in case an American soldier was captured in Europe by Germans the latter would have no way to identify if he were Jew or not.However as I have written the Nazis had extremely accurate tools and seldom were fooled.

Why is circumcision not practiced in Poland?
If it is not broken don't fix it would be my smart answer.

If a kids father isn't circumcised and the son is, one of them might end up with a complex!

here's how i sum up circumcision:

if men were all born without the skin flap and certain people had surgery that added the skin flap onto their penises, it would totally freak out all women.

when we spin it around, considering that men are born with the flap and get it cut off, the vast majority of women today don't have a problem with it......and they continue not to.

the way i see it, when women are with "snipped" men their whole lives, it's a much bigger adjustment for them to be with a guy who is "el natural" vs. a woman who has always had natural weenies and then met a guy with a snipped one.

maybe a simpler way to look at it would be this:

pole 100 women that have uncut men and ask them if they'd be comfortable with a snipped man.

pole 100 women with snipped men and ask them if they'd be comfortable with uncut men.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the group of 100 women with cut men would have much less women willing to go "the other way".

Fuzzywickets, you seem very good at spinning things round, so try this:

Should baby girls have ANY part cut off (that's any part, not just the horrendous things they do in Africa) to please a future male partner? If not, why not?

And watch a video of a boy having his genitals cut and you won't call it a "snip". With a Gomco or Mogen Clamp it's sliced (and a Mogen may take more than just the foreskin, which has led to successful claims worth millions and the Mogen company going out of business). With a Platibell it's crushed and allowed to die. With an Accu-circ it's chopped. But never "snipped".

Boys don't have any part of their genitals cut off in Poland for the same reason they don't have them cut off in most of the world - especially the developed world. It's the same reason they don't have their earlobes cut off or their little toes cut off. As they said in South Park, "Cuttin' off [parts of] wee-wees [or anything else] ain't cool!"

it's genital mutilation, simple as. It has no health benefits whatsoever so it's a pointless procedure, therefore it's genital mutilation. It should be banned, but that won't happen, because it's a jewish practice and we're not allowed criticise anyone for believing in a bullshit religion whether it's a vengeful jewish yahweh, the hippy christ, the mad lookin elephant thing or the bearded mohammed who married a teenage girl.

Smurf has got it right. I think also it's because Poles are practical people - they don't see mutilate their kids genitals as being practical. Poles are also 99% Catholic, and catholicism does not practice circumsision. Circumsision is a jewish tradition and that is where it originated. Then eventually doctors brainwashed society into thinking it is healthy to make extra money when babies are born.

I'm going to go one step further then Smurf and say that not only is their is no health benefit to circumsision - it is actually detrimental to the health of your genitals because by removing the foreskin you are basically removing the protective cover of your genitals. It would be like removing the fur from a polar bear. Studies show that men who are circumsision lose sensitivity over time and their sex life is greatly reduced. Just think about it - why would God make give us foreskins if there wasn't a need for them. I'm not circumsized and my dick is long and thick like Kielbasa and i'm happy to stretch out American sluts with it

Steady on Greg I'm having lunch.
10 out of 10 however for the scariest, silliest skinning simile

"my penis is so small that they couldn't find enough skin to cut, and the only sluts I see are the ones on my sticky computer screen"

PF Truth.

I think that the decision to have your baby boy circumcised should not be taken lightly. Here in Canada from what I gather most parents opt to have this done simply because they want their son to look the same as the other boys , and so it goes on and on. In England it is not common practice in the caucasion population. As far as it looking better, Ive seen both and they look the same when erect which is the only time that I bother to look.

about 1-10 citizens of the Republic of Poland practised it before 1939.

I realize you're not very educated in science, but foreskin and penis size are not always proportional.

Hugh7 wrote:


you're going about this all wrong, at least if you're trying to argue with me.

you're comparing apples to oranges. my argument is that circumsized shweens are looked at by women.....well.....see post #191. I wasn't aruing that it should be done, rather, simply how it's perceived by women from a sexual standpoint.

Hugh7 wrote:


I can't comment on that because it's not regularly practiced so I don't know if chicks dig it. BUT, if something else started, some small "alteration" to men's bodies and women found it more attractive.....well.....back to post #191.

When women start pulling down men's pants and saying to them, "oh how barbaric! what did they do to you! oh that's just wrong and it looks terrible! pull your pants up right now, I'm completely turned off!".........well, then that's when they'll stop circumsizing baby boys.

so it is a fashion statement in Canada?

jochemczyk wrote:


the fact that you would even say this is proof that you've only seen one kind. were you just blind to the skin sheath covering the entire head of the shween? nooooo difference? come on.

think what you just said, and maybe retract. no pun intended ;-p

Magdalena wrote:


you mean pull my statement back? slide it back so that........or remove it entirely for a better presentation.....

let's face it Magdalena, if you want to take that literally, a blind person has other ways of figuring it out.....and we all know how quickly they'd sense the difference :D

Just in the interests of general preputial behaviour, when erect, this is not often the case.

There is generally partial (half or more even?) natural retraction.

In case anyone is interested that is.

Probably not.

This is an awesome quote.

Because we have learned how to wash these body parts and don't have to mutilate them instead. Try some day some warm water and soap, it really isn't all that disgusting.

:)

that is a lie

Foreigner4 wrote:


an awesomely senseless comparison.

Rebirth wrote:


disgusting? i think you're pushin' it a bit there, buddy.

arguable whether it's preferred or not? I'd say.

Shut up yah meat gazer it's an awesome quote!

What are you talking about in this thread??? To undergo an infant child this insane surgery caused by ill religious fixations (or even FASHION!) is one of the worst crime against the other human! It was a crime chased by police in Poland. Internet is full of freaks doing with their OWN cocks, asses or clits absolute horrible things, but they WANT to do it and they are mostly grown up. It's their own choice.

I understand that stoning, honour murders, cutting off nose or ears for illegal defloration and other nice procedures like male or female circumcision or so are achievements of the very progressive countries and cultures, but I had to live enough time in such a progressive system to understand what it really means for REAL people.

And one more thing. Shits about "health benefits" of circumcision were repelled by medicans 35416843975 times and I let me not to talk about it 35416843976 time.