>>2649983I don't need to do more research. You're just wrong. Oh, the studies that go against your narrative are "wrong"? Wow, I'm shocked. I never expected you to say that. Let me guess, these "rigged" studies full of "blatant lies" are a secret Jewish plot, right? And actually, banning male circumcision would be extremely anti-Semitic, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that most Incels in my experience are rabid anti-Semites. Male circumcision isn't a "human rights violation". God, you pathetic Intactivists use such emotional language. Most circumcised men aren't actually "traumatised", but I'm sure you'll reply with a "study" saying circumcision increases your risk of developing autism or something. Yes, that's actually happened to me before. Intactivists are no different to anti-vaxxers.
>>2649991Most Intactivists are self-hating cut guys. Them being circumcised and hating that is the main driving factor behind most of their "activism". Male circumcision doesn't increase STI risk. It decreases it. It reduces risk of aquringing during heterosexual sex HIV by 60%. Source? World Health Organisation. A much more reliable source than some angry Intactivist with an agenda. I don't believe that you're uncut, in the same way you won't believe me when I say that I'm uncut, which I am. I'd much rather be cut and I hope to get cut one day. Intactivists are the one who are headstrong about their "ruined" dicks, which aren't actually ruined, in most cases. Did you really just compare child human sacrifice to male circumcision? God, you're are retarded.
>>2649994Circumcison isn't "mutilation", based on my reading of the definition. You can't objectively define it as such, because it doesn't cause "serious damage" (unless botched, in which case it truly mutilation). You Intactivists are so easily triggered. Really hate your cut dicks, huh? Oh, woe is me, I was "sexually assulted" and "mutilated" at birth. I'm "traumtised". I'm a "victim".
