Should We Circumcise Women To Prevent Throat Cancer In Men? Reblogged from Return of Kings

7 Jul

Link to article here (NSFW)



Recently, Forbes ran an article alleging that thousands of men including JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon have been getting throat cancer in epidemic proportions due to HPV.

But it’s very possible that Dimon has been swept up, along with thousands of other men, by an increasingly common disease: throat cancer caused by infection with the human papilloma virus, or HPV.

“It wouldn’t be unusual,” says Eric Genden, chief of head and neck oncology at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “This is an epidemic.”

How do you get HPV cancer? HPV is sexually transmitted. It’s mainly known as a cause of cervical cancer, which is what happens when it infects women. But men can get it by performing cunnilingus. It’s also possible, though less likely, that it can be transmitted by kissing. Eighty percent of sexually active people between the ages of 14 and 44 have had oral sex with an opposite sex partner. Researchers estimate that HPV throat cancer in men will be more common than cervical cancer in women in the U.S.

Jamie Dimon wouldn’t be the first to get throat cancer through oral sex. Last year, actor Michael Douglas said his throat cancer was also caused by HPV.

Asked whether he now regretted his years of smoking and drinking, usually thought to be the cause of the disease, Douglas replied: “No. Because without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV [human papillomavirus], which actually comes about from cunnilingus.”

Thousands of men are dying each year from infected female genitals. And not just any men—Forbes describes these men as “men at the peak of their lives and professional power”—or as we like to call them, alpha males. These aren’t just men who are sexually attractive to large numbers of women, but the ones most attentive to the sexual pleasure of their female partners. Truly our best and brightest. How can we stop this “epidemic” from claiming their lives?

I offer a modest proposal: female circumcision.



Female circumcision would remove all the the genital tissue associated with STD transmission when oral sex is performed on a woman, creating a smooth keratinized surface free from cancer spreading bodily fluids. While it may seem like an extreme measure, here are a few reasons we need to begin circumcising women in America:

We Already Cut One Gender To Protect Another

There is historical precedent for cutting the genitals of one gender to protect another from STD transmissions, and specifically HPV transmission. In 1954, researcher Ernest Wynder suggested thatsmegma found in men’s foreskins was causing cervical cancer in their partners. (It was later discovered his research subjects were not sexually educated enough to know if they or their partners were circumcised.) Though there is a link between cervical cancer and HPV, the link between circumcision and cervical cancer was later disproved, but not before becoming such a strong cultural meme that many doctors still use this myth to justify cutting men’s genitals.

Smegma was thought to be behind STD transmission in intact men. Smegma is of course a naturally occurring lubricant secreted by the genitals of both men and women, thought to have bacteria killing functions. The word smegma comes from the Greek word for soap. When a woman gets wet, her body is producing smegma. Women naturally produce more smegma than men, and any man who performs oral sex on a woman probably swallows some of her smegma. If smegma spreads STDs —and in particular HPV—and women have more smegma than men, then it is imperative we begin circumcising women as quickly as possible to protect men from this public health threat.

The AAP Has Already Supported Female Circumcision

In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a policy statement which stated that pediatricians should be allowed to perform a “ritual nick” on girls genitals for immigrant parents who come from cultures that circumcise women. The policy statement said that since pediatricians already perform the significantly more invasive procedure of male circumcision, they should be allowed to draw blood from the genitals of little girls to satisfy the demands of parents.

However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC.

The AAP policy quickly retracted their policy due to outcry from anti-FGC (Female Genital Cutting) groups and Intact America, but if “because parents want it” is sufficient reason for a national American medical organization to pull down a little girls pants and driving a sharp object into her clitoris, saving the lives of our best and brightest cunnilinguists is a good enough reason to reopen the debate.

We Used To Practice Female Circumcision In America

Female circumcision wasn’t outlawed until 1996. As Patricia Robinett, a woman circumcised by the American medical system, details in her book The Rape of Innocence: Female Genital Mutiliation & Circumcision in the USA female circumcision used to common enough in the United States to be covered by Blue Cross Shield and other medical insurance companies. Playgirl actually ran an article in the 1970s suggesting female circumcision might increase female sexual pleasure.


It Would Bring Greater Gender Equality

The United States is spending millions of dollars in grant money to circumcise Africians to prevent HIV, based on research that has been called both ethically and scientifically questionable. Shouldn’t women get some of that grant money too? Men get 100% of the genital cutting in America, and women get none. It’s time to change that. Female circumcision shouldn’t just be legal, it should be federally subsidized like birth control. Women should be in the streets protesting religious groups that refuse to pay for their employees female circumcision. It is our duty to support women in whatever they need to express their sexuality, including removing parts of their sex to make the sex they have safe sex.

Activists against male genital cutting say that condoms already prevent HIV transmission better than any surgery. While that may be true of the penis, who uses a dental dam when going down on a woman? Anyone? As comedian Patrice O’Neal humorously notes most women shame men who try to use protection when going down on a woman. Men are so thirsty, they will literally drink cancer before risk offending their female partners.

It’s time to make sex safe again. It’s time for equality. It’s time for female circumcision.

74 Responses to “Should We Circumcise Women To Prevent Throat Cancer In Men? Reblogged from Return of Kings”

  1. LeJacquelope July 7, 2014 at 14:41 #

    NEVER EVEREVEREVEREVER associate yourself with Return of Kings. Ever.


  2. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 14:43 #

    Why not? It’s a great article.


  3. sandie68 July 7, 2014 at 14:53 #

    Are you serious? Please tell me you are not being serious?


  4. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 14:54 #

    Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.

    Tradcons. I don’t agree with them but see no need to fear or shun them.


  5. sandie68 July 7, 2014 at 14:57 #

    That doesn’t make it a ‘great article’.


  6. acethepug July 7, 2014 at 15:03 #

    It does make it every bit as logical (or not) as the counter-view used by feminists, which I think is the point. If X is acceptable, and Y would accomplish the same thing, why would you not do Y as well, as it were?

    Hope that makes sense.

    Or, more pointedly, if (some) women will point to studies to support their point of view, why would it be wrong for men to do the same? I think the fact that the article is getting such a “this is horrible!” comment is telling, because an article promoting male circumcision wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow.

    Equality my furry butt …


  7. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 15:14 #

    It was a fantastic article that highlights the absurdity of cutting boys for “health benefits”. Before you reply be aware that I do not permit anyone to promote or defend the cutting of infants of either sex in earnest. You may joke about it, point to the irrationality and barbarism of genital cutting or engage in any critique or mockery you like.

    I do not permit any conversation that discusses why cutting babies is acceptable. It is not. Adults may stab, slice, dice or flay their genitals as they wish.


  8. patriarchal landmine July 7, 2014 at 15:22 #

    that was pretty funny.


  9. acethepug July 7, 2014 at 15:24 #

    Agreed. No promotion, hope I didn’t come off that way.


  10. Bob Munro July 7, 2014 at 15:24 #

    I have an idea, why don’t we have parents teach their children proper hygiene? that way we could get to keep our body parts intact.


  11. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 15:25 #

    It’s more for the benefit of other commenters who might be tempted to try and justify such base cruelty, Ace.


  12. sandie68 July 7, 2014 at 15:25 #

    To post the article without comment seems to suggest that you are supporting that view. If I am wrong then I apologise. The idea of either sex being cut without being old or wise enough to make an informed choice is wrong.


  13. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 15:29 #

    Weird how we treat urinary tract infections in girls with antibiotics, not scalpels.


  14. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 15:31 #

    It is indeed very wrong. This article reframes the “cut little boys for health reasons” by suggesting women and girls should be cut, something we rightly see as barbaric, no matter what “benefits” might accrue.

    I would like to see all children protected.


  15. Spaniard July 7, 2014 at 15:34 #

    Is better the chastity belt.


  16. lialus July 7, 2014 at 15:44 #

    Could not agree moew


  17. Jorick July 7, 2014 at 15:45 #

    I agree with you that children should not be subject to genital mutilation, just leave it for when they are adults capable of rational thoughts.

    However, I suffer from Asperger, and it is difficult for me to pick up sarcastic/ironic cues, whether verbal or written.

    Please, Judgybitch, for the love of fuck and all you hold dear, place a disclaimer or something indicating that you don’t endorse such a thing and it is intended as a reversal of genders of feminist dogma. It easily leads to confusion…


  18. Josh July 7, 2014 at 16:01 #

    This is brilliant!


  19. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 16:06 #

    Jorick, I understand your difficulties but do not endorse trigger warnings. I imagine you often confront the issue of missing subtleties. Hell, I test high on Asperger scales too, but I consider that my challenge and do not expect others to accommodate me.

    I’ll require you to do the same. This conversation in the comments clarifies what we both mean, so no trigger required.


  20. Jeremy July 7, 2014 at 16:10 #

    I will openly associate myself with Return of Kings.

    Does that make my words automatically suspect?

    It shouldn’t do that, but not because my words should not be carefully examined. No, everything I say should be considered and either corrected, accepted, or rejected. But it shouldn’t receive special treatment based on where it came from.

    When you give preferential treatment to ideas based on who is saying them, you’re essentially practicing religion.


  21. Steven July 7, 2014 at 16:25 #

    You should learn about literary devices. The one featured in this piece was made famous by an essay called “a modest proposal”. Its supposed to shock your good sense in a juxtaposed manner.


  22. Roger July 7, 2014 at 16:35 #

    As far as I’m aware I’m not anywhere on the Aspie scale, but I too was wondering whether this was meant in earnest. To find out, I had to read the comments.

    In retrospect, I suppose “modest proposal” should have clued me in.


  23. Anders Ericsson July 7, 2014 at 18:06 #

    I’m surprised there’s even a discussion ’bout the article. Isn’t it plain obvious it’s a rhetorical device pointing out how unacceptable circumcision is?
    As for whom the original article is from, the source might to some degree influence how the message is viewed (a “fact” from a source known for lying wildly will be less likely to be accepted than a fact from a source known for it’s integrity) but the source is not in itself an argument for or against. It’s only a factor as regards the correctness of the fact, or if facts are cherry picked to fit a certain agenda.


  24. Alex July 7, 2014 at 19:28 #

    was not expecting the diagram to pop up, that’s for sure


  25. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 19:30 #

    Sorry! Will label NSFW! That was a mistake. My apologies.


  26. Sarah July 7, 2014 at 19:33 #

    I kept waiting for the turning point where you reveal you were speaking sarcastically to prove a point. You are actually recommending mutilation. That’s disgraceful. May you never experience sexual pleasure again.


  27. judgybitch July 7, 2014 at 19:34 #

    Much like we recommend male mutilation? You missed the point Sarah. ALL GENITAL MUTILATION is disgraceful. Not just female versions.


  28. Joe July 7, 2014 at 19:49 #

    Sarah, please tell me you don’t vote or interact with other humans.


  29. Goober July 7, 2014 at 20:20 #

    Sandie – do you have the ability to recognize satire when you see it?

    Just asking, because right now, you’re staring down both barrels of a satircal article and are proceeding based on the assumption that anyone at ROK is actually supporting female circmcision.

    They are not.

    They are AGAINST male circumcision, and are making that point by showing how barbaric people assume it is when the genders are flipped.

    I am sorry that you needed to have this explained to you.

    The word is satire. Google it.


  30. Goober July 7, 2014 at 20:22 #

    Yup. The argument that a little boy might get an infection under his foreskin is the main reason that they promote circumcision.


    What about female UTIs? Those are very common, and would be more preventable if female circumcision were more prevalent.

    Again, the idea is absolutely barbaric when we do it to women, but cut off a piece of a little boy and no one gives a shit. In fact, they shun and ridicule those who think it is as barbaric as it actually is.


  31. Goober July 7, 2014 at 20:23 #

    Sarah. Please do me a favor Google the word “satire.”

    Now, Google the term “a modest proposal.”

    When you’re finished, come back and apologize for being a fucking retard.


  32. sandie68 July 7, 2014 at 20:28 #

    Actually it isn’t ‘plain obvious’ when reading it from the site it was re-blogged from it sounds sincere. This is not helped by the fact that it has garnered so many deeply revolting comments along the lines of ‘yeah bitch take that!’ Several people I know who have now read it took it to be a straight article (male and female) so what a lot of people will take away from this article is the advocating of female genital mutilation.


  33. dolf July 7, 2014 at 20:44 #

    that almost makes me despair. Now, I have read earlier articles of Judgy Bitch, so it’s immediately obvious that she is posting the article as satire. But even if I had seen the article somewhere else, I would immediately suspect it was meant as satire, it’s too dissonant with the cultural context to be a serious proposal. I would at the very least postpone any judgement until I had verified via other posts of the same author what his/her real opinions were. See also Poe's law – Wikipedia.


  34. dolf July 7, 2014 at 20:49 #

    prude americans 😀


  35. sandie68 July 7, 2014 at 21:02 #

    The comments below the original article made me despair (read them they are extremely offensive). I didn’t read the article here but followed JB’s link to the original poster and guess what the people who read the articles on that site seem to think FGM is a great idea – or are they being ‘ironic’ too?


  36. Eldritch Edain July 7, 2014 at 22:26 #

    Huh, I read this as obvious satire from the start. After the whole Colbert Report thing, I must wonder if Western culture is losing its ability to understand satire?


  37. Goober July 7, 2014 at 22:53 #

    Sandie – the entire intent of satire is that you DON’T make it “plain obvious” that you are joking by coming right out and saying it. It sort of undermines the entire point.

    The point is that you present a completely outrageous idea in the same way that others present more accepted ideas, to show the fallacy in their line of thinking.

    If people are too dense to understand that without having to post a clear disclaimer every time someone uses satire, then I despair for the future of our country.

    You do recognize that Onion article aren’t real, and that Stephen Colbert isn’t actually a conservative, right?


  38. Tyler July 8, 2014 at 00:29 #

    With the ability for everyone to have a voice, the truly radical viewpoints are more easily encountered. It’s no longer beyond the pale to hear someone honestly advocate something like this. Although in this particular instance, anyone who’s read pretty much anything by JB should be able to guess that she doesn’t endorse genital mutilation.

    Said another way, many people (in the mainstream no less) sincerely endorse male genital mutilation of babies. If that’s real, what’s satire?


  39. Emma the Emo July 8, 2014 at 02:21 #

    Hah, perfect. Purposely offending, purposely outrageous, and makes the reader feel like a hypocrite. Except, be prepared for lots of people feeling outrage, but not understanding the point &continuing to be ok with male circumcision.

    But many people will get it.


  40. JShaft July 8, 2014 at 02:24 #

    Depends entirely. For preaching to the choir, it’s perfectly fine, but if one were to judge it by it’s ability to sway opinion or effect change, I’d call it fairly fail. In the end, this will be one of those articles that Feminists use to “Prove” that anyone who opposes routine male child genital mutilation is a rampant misogynist, which helps us how, exactly?

    Truly, there are some great arguments for actual equality, and I understand the urge (and the fun), but satire in print is very difficult to pull off, unless the reader is already assured of your actual intent. Think how Feminists now just defend that delightful article on Jezebel about beating up their male partners as “clearly joking” while parading Paul “Subtlety” Elam’s strained satire as factual calls to violence against women.

    Seriously, maybe it’s my time training in martial arts (which I’m crap at, but I get the theory) and therapy (which I’m good at, and get the theory), but time spent doing things that feel “right” but are proven to be counterproductive is time wasted. Surely those we are trying to help deserve better? Right now, I look at gender politics and see two sides crying foul at each other for what are, fundamentally, similar behaviors. If we wanna fight dirty, fine, but don’t expect those who don’t have a personal stake to look at the fight and see us as noble.

    TL:DR: If you want to sure up your base, this is fine. If you want to convert anyone to your cause, this is hardly the best method.


  41. Alex July 8, 2014 at 02:43 #

    not NSFW for me (although i agree that the tag should be there), just not something i’d expect from this site


  42. Master Beta July 8, 2014 at 08:16 #

    Your reaction is the point.


  43. Master Beta July 8, 2014 at 08:30 #

    Well they’re not being ironic, not by the normal definition of “ironic” anyhow.
    Return of the kings is a website that thrives off being offensive for the sake of being offensive. If they can do something two ways: Inoffensively or offending as many people as possible, they will always choose the later.
    It is an effective strategy for getting noticed. It is a strategy many comedians often use (south park and family guy for example).
    Do they actually believe what they say? Hard to say. But, speaking as someone who loves to offend people, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.


  44. dolf July 8, 2014 at 09:22 #

    Colbert Report thing? (I love Colbert Report, but haven’t seen it för a very long time so wonder what “the thing” is)
    But yeah, the ability to recognize and understand satire and irony seems to be dwindling at a rapid rate. Though in many cases the pc cohort seem to intentionally misconstrue any intention and statement to something evil by the worst literal interpretation possible.


  45. Eldritch Edain July 8, 2014 at 10:43 #

    Many people endorse male genital mutilation, yes. But this article is “endorsing” female genital mutilation, not seriously, but as a gender reversal to show why it’s wrong to support male gm while opposing female gm. So, that anyone would think the rok author or jb are endorsing the cutting of any infant is surprising to me.


  46. JShaft July 8, 2014 at 11:43 #

    That’s kinda the problem. You know the authors, or at least read the pages and are familiar with their goals, general tone etc. Everyone who isn’t is gonna be really easy for the Feminists to goad into choosing a side, and it sure won’t be the side that doesn’t support genital mutilation… Also, if it’s trying to be funny, I think they forgot something: The funny.

    All valid points, all valid observations, and a valid way of making one’s point, if you’re talented, like Stephen Colbert… Whoever the author was, they might wanna hang onto their day job a while longer…


  47. JShaft July 8, 2014 at 11:51 #

    Unfortunately, we’re trying to effect mass social change. That takes skillful communication. That, this isn’t. I get the structure and the intent, and I’m completely onside with both that kind of humor and the points being made, but… I didn’t laugh, even that rueful, “I wish the world wasn’t as fucked as it is” laugh/headshake that talented satirists elicit.

    So, kinda fail for me on both fronts really. Not offended, just disappointed, and incrementally less likely to ever call myself an MRA, if this is what passes for activism. Pissing off the opposition is fun in sports and games, but this is kinda really serious shit, with huge, fuck-off horrible consequences for lots of people, and the more time and effort we devote to pissfarting about and trying to shit as many people who don’t agree with us (currently) as possible, the less we can do.

    For me, it’s getting closer daily to shifting from “we/us” to “the other gender warriors”.

    I know the conference happened, I know stuff in India is making chests puff out with pride and achievement. You can feel the needle swinging. The media are taking notice. Now is not the time for arbitrary foot-shooting.

    Or maybe I should lighten the fuck up, acknowledge that it’s probably never going to get better and just start fiddling while Rome burns too…


  48. Spaniard July 8, 2014 at 12:06 #

    Last news from Spain:

    *An Irish girl (19) sucks 22 c****s in a nightclub, for booze. In Mallorca.
    The mangina Spanish media claims for “abuso machista!!!” (“male chauvinist pig abuse!!!”)

    *Drunk girls flashing their boobs and leting themselves touched by dozens of male hands, in the Running of the Bulls, in Pamplona.
    Mangina Spanish media claims for “violación contra chicas ebrias!!!” (“Rape against drunk girls!!!”)

    *Patricia Conde, famous Spanish TV host and model (34) divorces rich hubby after just one year and half of marriage and one child from the marriage, accusing hubby of “psycological abuse during marriage” (3 years jail, in Spain). Judge denies accusations from Miss Conde.


  49. Spaniard July 8, 2014 at 12:28 #

    I am a leftie and I agree with lot of things from tradcon Return of the Kings.
    Especailly with “Sluts make bad wives”.
    A few nights ago, I heard from charming French female lips: “the man to have party with is not the man to be the father of your children. Studs make bad hubbies”.
    So… is it wrong if we think that the woman to have party with is not the woman to be the mother of our children?
    Double standard again?
    The funny thing is in Europe, the “father of my children” (alias “beta provider”) still considered “the One”. Not “the one who will pay the bills”, how is already known in USA.
    Feminism still extremely popular in Europe. Not unmasked yet.


  50. Spaniard July 8, 2014 at 12:40 #

    Just one clarification: since I am not the hubby/daddy type and never have been, personally I am just interested in sluts and prostitutes, not “good girl type”. But I understand that men that want to make a family rather thw “god girl type” over the “slut” for a wifey.

    So.. hurrah for Return of the Kings!!!

    From a leftie.


  51. Paul Murray July 8, 2014 at 12:41 #

    Only to people who have never heard of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. The point of satire is not only to lampoon a point of view, but those who don’t get that it’s satire.


  52. dolf July 8, 2014 at 13:47 #

    Swift got into some heavy water also for his modest proposal. They didn’t get it then either. (And I remember when we read it in high school at the end of the seventies, I was studying “natural sciences” as it’s called in sweden, but in some cases we had class together with the “humanists” which were a lot of pretty girls. They were horrified over Swift’s proposal, rejected him as being insane, sick and god knows what. I couldn’t resist, but stood up and gave a impassioned speech defending Swift’s proposal as “logical” and the “best solution in a grave situation”. The humanist pretties refused to talk to me for several months after that. I’m still on the fence if it was worth it 🙂 )
    However, feminists often defend Solanas’ Scum Manifesto as “satire”, and it’s well worth taking a look at A Modest Proposal and the Scum Manifesto and their authors in a comparison. Even a quick superficial glance at A Modest Proposal will make it plain that it is indeed satire and not a genuine proposal, as there’s a lot of little flags giving away that it is not seriously meant. Not least is that there’s a lot of arguments missing that a genuine proposal would have entailed. The Scum Manifesto on the other hand, has no signals giving it away as not reflecting the authors honest views and opinions (the jury is out on if she really meant the manifesto to be executed for real, but there’s no doubt it does reflect her true view on men and hatred of them).
    For me, I’m not having any kids of my own, but I never fail to advice my friends and neighbors that they ought to do something worthwhile with their children, i.e. ragout.


  53. Dan Bollinger July 8, 2014 at 14:27 #

    This essay got a lot of commentary when it was reposted on a pro-intact (anti-circumcision) forum two days ago. The responses were so vitriolic that the admins were forced to remove the post. The same thing happened there as is happening here. Instead of commenting on the absurdity of promoting mass circumcision of male infants to possibly prevent cervical cancer in adult women, commenters got stuck on the hot-button RoK aspect. I find their lack of discipline disappointing. Harming baby boys is a topic that deserves discussion.


  54. Magnus July 8, 2014 at 15:47 #

    Oh that made me giggle.

    I love how one gender is protected from any harm, when another has to suffer the ignorance of parents, and the burden of others. Why should we men be expected to do plastic surgery, when a lot of the illnesses circumcision “prevents” is better prevented through vaccination? And forgetting the low percentage of “prevention” circumcision actually does.

    What’s even more insane is that in countries with great public health care women are the only ones who get the HPV vaccine for free, and men are told “Get it for the women”. Even though we now know that men can get cancer from the virus as well, and that HPV is also cause of genital warts. (But hey screw gynosentricm, let’s focus on the women instead.)

    All in all the vaccine should be given to everyone. I am willing to bet that the vaccine cost a lot less than treatment for throat cancer in men, and that is on top of all the other issues HPV can cause.

    To me this is like saying “No, only women get the AIDS vaccine, men can get circumcisions, because reasons”


  55. Magnus July 8, 2014 at 15:48 #

    Welcome to Gynocentrism, population you.


  56. JBfan July 8, 2014 at 17:58 #

    My short answer: No. Nononononononononononnonononononononononononononono!!!!!!! It’s bad enough that circumcision is still considereed legitimate – this only makes it worse! Maybe the point of the article is to highlight that male circumcision is wrong? But still! There’s got to be a better way to do that than this!

    Sorry JB, I love you and all, but I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this one.


  57. judgybitch July 8, 2014 at 19:12 #

    It’s satire! Not a serious proposal.


  58. Duke D. Mabirou July 8, 2014 at 19:27 #

    oh. Poe’s Law got me.


  59. Magnus July 8, 2014 at 20:13 #

    I’m uncut and have never ever had any ailment regarding the foreskin, most men haven’t, and yet people cling to this archaic thing.

    But really what I find even more disgusting is the “it looks better” crowd. Oh so we should preform plastic surgery on newborns now, to please a possible future girl? Wow.


  60. Magnus July 8, 2014 at 20:14 #

    Is it windy up there? I mean with you head up in the clouds?


  61. Magnus July 8, 2014 at 20:16 #

    Hehe I love how people think that JB is for real.
    These days we are so used to people telling us what to do that we don’t understand satire.

    I was laughing the whole way through because I know JBs stance on Circumcision


  62. judgybitch July 8, 2014 at 20:22 #

    That argument is the one that makes me really sick. That’s just straightforward sadistic.


  63. Spaniard July 8, 2014 at 21:44 #

    Was not serious?

    Now I disagree.


  64. JShaft July 8, 2014 at 22:28 #

    Therein lies the problem: You’ve read her work before, and know her position on this. Satire is easy to spot when it’s obvious due to familiar context.

    My question is: What does this read like to people new to this movement and to this site? Moreover, how does it look to the enemy? Sure it’s fun, but I thought we were kinda serious, and that there were critical issues at play here. Is having a quiet chuckle (potentially, it didn’t strike me as all that funny) among the choir worth it when it’s scaring off however many potential converts, to stretch my tortured analogy?

    Seriously, how many more “But it’s funny” own-goals do we wanna score before people like myself just sigh and leave you guys to your odd little gender-warrior club?

    Justifying and supporting this makes the argument for Feminism to hold the SCUM manifesto as satire, and that article about boyfriend-bashing on Jezebel as satire. Personally, if I have to disassociate from this crowd just to be able to point out what Feminism is doing wrong, without being a massive hypocrite, well, I know which way I’ll go on that front.

    Seriously, there is too much injustice, too much abuse and unfairness to blow it for cheap laughs…


  65. dolf July 8, 2014 at 22:59 #

    First off, as I said, even if I had seen is somewhere else I would suspect it was meant as satire or sarcasm as it is dissonant with the cultural context, not just with JB’s views. If it had really been seriously meant, it would have read a bit differently.
    And I think you’re missing the point with being satirical here. It’s not really about being funny and getting laughs. It’s about showing how outrageous the acceptance of male circumcision is. I sometimes write pieces myself with a very harsh rhetoric, like JB when she’s on the roll, and I get this “well, I don’t really think it’s funny”, and hell, it’s not meant to be funny. It’s meant to be provoking to get jolt people out of their complacency and to break through the walls of the little box they normally let limit their thinking.


  66. JShaft July 9, 2014 at 03:27 #

    Um.. I honestly don’t mean to be rude, but perhaps you could double-check the meaning of “satire” and get back to me…


  67. dolf July 9, 2014 at 06:37 #

    Been there, done that. Started when I saw Orwells 1984 classified as satire, which didn’t make sense at all to me. (And I still strongly disagree with 1984 being labelled satire.) But strictly according to definition, satire doesn’t have to be funny. It’s main feature is criticism by contemptuous irony and exaggeration.
    But, I actually do agree with you on that point, in my book satire should be funny to be called satire. However, I just used the “satire” for lack of a better word, it doesn’t change anything I said. I sometimes write heavily sarcastic and ironic pieces, and I protest when people label it satire (happens quite often) as there usually is no intention whatsoever from my side to be funny, the quality sought is an uncompromising punch, not humor.


  68. Captain Obvious July 9, 2014 at 11:47 #

    I am not ROTKaphobic. Generally I can go onto the front page and find at least 2 good articles, sure vastly more of them are oversimplified and a fair few are just stupid but they are probably no worse, and in general possibly fractionally better than the crap you find in modern newspapers. This article makes a compelling argument for FGM that makes vastly more sense than MGM, I still don’t agree with mutilating the genitals of any baby but what this article highlights is that the argument for FGM is much stronger than the one for MGM. I think that any sort of body modification should legally be only allowed with the full and informed consent of the person who it is being acted upon. I think the sensible thing to do is to demand that any women who wishes to engage in MGM must first have her clitoris removed as the reasons for FGM are so much more compelling. Also I think this should be applied retroactively to any mother who has circumcised her son.


  69. C July 9, 2014 at 22:24 #

    It always surprises me at how many people cannot understand satire at all. I remember talking about the Robocop remake with friends and how it looked like it was going to be missing the satirical elements (turns out it had a bit) and I literally had to read them the definition of satire. I guess this is the danger of satire: a whole whack of people will have it fly straight over their heads and the message won’t get across at all. Of course it gets awesome if someone waves it around as proof and gets embarassed when people say “uhh that’s satire.” Happens all the time with Onion articles and its the best.

    As for the “horrible” comments on it.. Please learn how trolls work and how comment sections are the first place they go to dump shit in (especially in clickbait like this article.)


  70. JShaft July 10, 2014 at 02:12 #

    Hmmm…. I see your point, but it doesn’t make much of a difference to how I see this piece. Feminists state that the SCUM manifesto and other outrages are “just satire”, so they can keep them around as a means to attract their own blackshirts…

    So, I don’t want, need, or think for a second I could control, or benefit from the actions of a blackshirt group. I appreciate the meaning of the piece, but as a form of communication through which the outside world may come to see our views and our understanding of reality, well…

    Great for preaching to the choir, but massively counterproductive outside of that one use.

    I was thinking about my own sense of humor last night. Around close friends, I’ll say things satirically and sarcastically, to send up racism, homophobia, sexism and so forth. Often by saying things that, in any other context, would understandably cause outrage and hurt. I still have, and use said sense of humor, but only around those that enjoy it. It’s not just on the internet where it’s hard to tell the difference between heartfelt lunacy and a tongue in a cheek.

    Seriously, I can’t bring myself to even type what I tend to say in private, because of the level of offensiveness. I made that mistake once when young, and there is still a group of humans out there somewhere who will always remember me as a vile bigot… Still, easier for Colbert, at least being broadcast on “The Comedy Channel” gives him a bit of leeway there :p


  71. Jax July 11, 2014 at 03:21 #

    Jesus, Sarah. Do you really need a big flashing neon THIS IS SATIRICAL sign in order to get that? Did the use of the phrase “a modest proposal” at the beginning not tip you off? Do you think Swift actually ate Irish babies? Hell, for that matter, do you know who Jonathan Swift even *is*

    What are they teaching in schools these days?


  72. Arska103.5 July 12, 2014 at 23:18 #

    The author was kind enough to put the literal version of “/s” tag in his text, “modest proposal”. What else you want, a 3D nude singing and covering their strategic spots with a sign “THIS IS SATIRE”?


  73. Rich Angell January 14, 2015 at 15:25 #

    I’m surprised that some people have to be ‘splained what satire is. It turns out that the one above is a prebuttal to this one from Women’s Health. Only they really believe it.



  1. Should We Circumcise Women To Prevent Throat Cancer In Men? Reblogged from Return of Kings | - July 7, 2014

    […] Should We Circumcise Women To Prevent Throat Cancer In Men? Reblogged from Return of Kings […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: