Might as well.

└ Tags:

Discussion (76)¬

  1. Son of Glenner says:

    As there have lately been so many inane comments and not enough intelligent debate here in the old Cock & Bull pub, I was going to just give up on it, but I’ve decided to keep on reading it a bit longer in case it gets better! After all, I’ve been following the strip for more than ten years now. If only the commenters were all as intelligent and witty as the wonderful Author!

  2. Laripu says:

    Son of Glenner, you’ll be missed!
    But keep reading the adventures of J&M at least.
    If you don’t, then how will you know how to get to Heaven?

  3. arbeyu says:

    SoG: Was that a “whoosh!” sound as your comment went over Laripu’s head?

  4. Son of Glenner says:

    arbeyu: Perhaps Laripu’s comment “whooshed” over your head!

    Laripu: Would you like to clarify your remarks? Or let them stand alone? Thanks anyway!

    I’ll be interested to see what Mr Holts has to say about this.

  5. Son of Glenner says:

    I’m sorry, M27Holts, couldn’t remember your first name. (I won’t say “Christian Name!”)

  6. Donn says:

    It does not seem to me that 10 years of reading, really represents a sunk cost, at least not in the sense of a fallacy.

    You’d have to more carefully make the case that you spent the whole time in a reasonable but unrealized expectation of intelligent discourse, and now know better. Otherwise the reader may assume that your search for intelligent life in the comments section simply continues as it has on the same basis, and is no more driven by `sunk cost’ than it ever was.

  7. Son of Glenner says:

    Donn: Whoosh!

  8. Laripu says:

    Yeah, that was definitely a ‘whoosh’ for me, I’m afraid. 🙂

  9. M27Holts says:

    SOG. You need to toin the humanist group. We fight religious nuttery everywhere. And yes, even in good old blighty are fighting a loosing battle against the tide of cultural relatavist bollocks…Even some on here still support the reprehensible practice of child genital mutilation….My MP has personally emailed me about the subject and the unwillingness to ban child genital mutilation because of fear of being labeled, Racist, Anti Semitic and Islamaphobic…we have seccumbed and are all turning into 21st Century Schizoid men…

  10. M27Holts says:

    Is that serious enough for you? I post levity on here, because through Satire and Lytotes, we face the insidious child torturers head on in other ways…

  11. M27Holts says:

    Humanists UK….

  12. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: I have been a member of Humanists UK for much longer than I have been following J&M, even when it used to be called the British Humanist Association. (Longer, in fact, than the J&M strip has been in existence!) I think I have mentioned this here previously.

    I am very much against all non-medical child mutilation, not only genital but also tattooing, ritual scarring, piercing, etc. The worst examples are already highly illegal, at least in this country (FGM).

    I am also against the non-physical labelling of children according to the religion of their parents, as “Catholic children”, “Muslim children”, etc. (To me, all children are born atheist.)

    You seem to be accusing me of lacking a sense of humour; did you not realise that my comments at the start of this column were an attempt at humour, related to the theme of the cartoon of the week? By the way, my apologies to Donn, for not “getting” him/her!

  13. Donn says:


  14. M27Holts says:

    Perhaps our tastes differ in terms of subjective appreciation of subtle humour. I know you don’t like Clarkson. Like I said, I have a lot in common with Mr Clarkson, so I like him. My old gran said, birds of a feather, stick together…so it is with religious pea-brains…Have you pecked your MP’s head as much ss I have? Ms Long-Bailey is better looking than any of her predecessors, but terrified of being labelled anti-semitic like Corbin…

  15. M27Holts says:

    I don’t think that banning all genital mutilation is anti anything. I see it as pro-children…and every person with a brain should concur….

  16. M27Holts says:

    I still find it staggering that in the 21st century, Britain still allows circumcision. I would put all their parents and guardians in jail for 2 years….that would sort the sadists out…all of them serving porridge…we would have to put them all in tents on greenland or something….let them eat snow! Draconian? Only as much as the mutilation of children and enjoying it…

  17. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: You obviously mean child circumcision, although you do not say so. I see no reason why a grown man, complete with all his bits, should not get himself circumcised if he wishes. Likewise with tattoos, scarring etc.

    I believe there is such a thing and an organisation, as jews against circumcision. I don’t know how numerous or how influential they are, but I wish them well.

  18. M27Holts says:

    I think an actor, Jim Rosenthals son was an advocate to ban circumcision. Can’t think why anyone wants tattoos, never mind piercings and chop bits off my willy? Madness…

  19. jb says:

    I assume everyone understands that banning child circumcision would be essentially the same as banning traditional Judaism. Is that where you really want to go?

  20. M27Holts says:

    Aye…can’t have people cutting bits off kid under the get out of free card…cultural relativism…obviously..can’t see anybody having a problem with that…

  21. M27Holts says:

    Get out of jail free and kids…

  22. M27Holts says:

    And besides, if female circumcision is illegal then so should the law protect male children from the same unnecessary pain..equality under the eyes of the law and all that…

  23. Laripu says:

    Son of Glenner, I found the link below, which describes some of the diversity of opinion among Jews, concerning circumcision.


    The comparisons between FGM and circumcision are spurious. FGM is designed to eliminate sexual pleasure and has numerous associated health problems. Male circumcision i.e. foreskin removal, has some health benefits which outweigh risks, while not interfering with pleasure. So comparing FGM to male circumcision is like comparing cutting your toenails with surgically removing your foot.

    The only question with male circumcision involves the rights of a newborn versus the rights of parents to make medical decisions for the newborn. And note that many non-Jewish American parents opt for circumcision of their newborn sons for health reasons. Those are by far the majority of circumcisions done, because American Jews comprise only 2% of the US population, but over 58% of newborn males in the US are circumcised. Data is from the site below.


  24. Choirboy says:

    Committing GBH on an infant who has no choice in the matter should be illegal. What it is ‘designed to do’ certainly is spurious, as are dodgy comparisons between toes and feet. I suspect that most adult men who were not assaulted as babies would be as likely as women to turn down the opportunity to have lumps chopped off their privates for the equally spurious ‘ health reasons’ which do not remotely ‘outweigh the risks’.
    I am pleased to say that I am still in possession of the prepuce I arrived with eighty years ago, as are most of the men of my acquaintance, none of whom have suffered from any of the ‘health risks’ which are always adduced to justify the abhorrent practice. There are far more health risks in the actual bloody assault on the child.
    My middle daughter’s American husband met with a repost in no uncertain terms when he suggested that their son should have bits chopped off him like he and his brothers had. So far so good; no ‘health problems’ with his perfectly intact member – and of course none expected.
    The fact that the habit of assaulting babies has been widely adapted in a country where millions have been convinced that the Mango Mussolini is a fine upstanding chap with their best interests at heart and is a victim of persecution doesn’t strike me as the best evidence for the wisdom of the practice.

  25. jb says:

    “Committing GBH on an infant who has no choice in the matter should be illegal.”

    According to your belief system it should be. According to theirs it shouldn’t. Why should your system take precedence over theirs?

    Personally I’m suspicious of the supposed health benefits of male circumcision. I agree though that any comparison with FGM is spurious. It’s a matter of degree: the latter has massive consequences; while the former, whatever its benefits or drawbacks, is vastly less consequential.

    In the end it’s a cultural thing: people have a right to determine their own cultures. As long as most people think male circumcision is OK it will be legal. So why doesn’t it follow that we are required to tolerate FGM as well? Because we are allowed to draw lines! There comes a point where respect for other people’s cultures ends, and imposing one’s own values on others feels justified, even necessary. FGM, as well as other practices such as slavery, cannibalism, and headhunting, all cross the line for us, while male circumcision doesn’t. I have no problem with this. Whatever distaste I may have for the procedure, I’m not going to advocate outlawing major religions over it.

  26. Donn says:

    If outlawing circumcision is the end of Judaism, then it apparently doesn’t have much going on. I know, quelle surprise, but …

  27. jb says:

    Donn — You may find that line of thinking persuasive, but traditional Jews certainly won’t. So back to my original question: why should your thinking take precedence over theirs?

  28. Chiefy says:

    jb, I doubt that male circumcision will be outlawed in the US in my lifetime. I think it should be, but my views aren’t always aligned with the majority. Regardless, it wouldn’t lead to the end of traditional Judaism. Perhaps it would lead to an outcome similar to when Mormons faced the outlawing of polygamy. By and large, the Mormons adapted their doctrine to avoid legal issues.
    I’m sure the ultraorthodox Jews would not accept any change to the practice, and how that would play out politically would be, at least, interesting. Make some popcorn.

  29. M27Holts says:

    Well. I would certainly advocate for the circumcised persons to use the full force of the law against the person who perpetrated the Removal of a peice of hardware , ground tested over hundreds of thousands of years by evolution that protects the sensitivity of the glans penis and improves sensation during intercourse and masturbation. .so there again is your religious loon bomb reason for chopping it off…stop children playing with thrmselves because it is fun…fook off anybody who thinks that torturing children should be allowed anywhere, anytime ever…

  30. M27Holts says:

    My mrs says it’s fun, playing the hide/peepo game with the penis during foreplay, psychologically she say’s that a circumcised penis just wouldn’t look right…

  31. M27Holts says:

    And this is binary, you are either with me…or agin me…

  32. Donn says:

    Why should my thinking take precedence over theirs [Jews’]? Because my thinking is right, or does that matter?

    I have some doubt however that you accurately perceived my thinking. All I said: “If outlawing circumcision is the end of Judaism, then it apparently doesn’t have much going on.” To elaborate (is it necessary?), the practice of circumcision is not a particularly profound manifestation of importance to the human spirit, to stand as such a major element of a religion. Hence a religion built on that, is not worth much concern.

    I would not expect Jews to precisely agree with my thinking. Perhaps they’d protest that circumcision is much more profound and life changing than I understand, but on the other hand maybe they’d allow that in fact Judaism is not at all going to fall just because civil society forbids circumcision, that in fact they’ve been through a whole lot worse and are still here.

    To be clear, my thinking does not happen to include any strong feelings one way or the other about circumcision itself, so I probably wouldn’t advocate for civil prohibition.

  33. Choirboy says:

    ‘Why should your system take precedence over theirs?’
    Well that’s not a view I ever expected to see urged in this forum; worthy of J n M themselves? Special pleading to give privilege to a tinpot, primitive, baseless ‘belief system’ in the face of established law?
    GBH is the wilful wounding of another person and specifically includes ‘ attacking another person with a sharp instrument such as a knife’ which pretty much covers the slicing off of a piece of another person’s dick without their consent.
    FGM and circumcision are not exactly the same? So what? Neither are manslaughter and murder but the former is still punishable under the law.
    Specious arguments about toes and feet really don’t cut it (sic!). The prepuce and labia majora evolved to protect the more sensitive parts of the productive organs and presumably if they had caused serious ‘health issues’ would not have done so. The cutting of genitals probably originated as ritualistic rites of passage challenges and have no place in the modern world just because ‘ it’s always been done’.
    Perhaps a true parallel to circumcision would be the removal of the outer labia while leaving the minora intact for ‘health reason’ and to preserve ‘sexual pleasure’? Obviously that would be fine if justified by a ‘belief system’ which sidestepped the rule of law because of the same privilege which keeps thirty bishops in the House of Lords. How about just sewing together the outer labia if that is part of a ‘ belief system’?
    Swathes of the US, especially in the South, have a belief system which holds that black people are inferior in every way to whites. Not only was that tenet not held to be equal to the opposing one but a nation was racked by war over it and laws enacted to counteract it, even though to this day its adherents persist. Any belief system which inflicts wilful harm on innocents should be met with the full impact of existing laws.

  34. Laripu says:

    Given that 58% of American newborn males are circumcised and only 2% of Americans are Jews, the discussion should not be about Jews. Beside which, laws against circumcision will not stop it among Jews. It won’t affect Jews at all in that regard. They’ll simply fly or drive to a country where it’s legal and do it there, then return a couple of weeks later; a circumcision holiday. Those who can’t afford to do that but still want to, will be supported by the religious Jewish organizations. In fact, Jewish organizations will see it as a restriction on religious liberty and will even fund Muslims who want to travel to do that. There’s a precedent: the (non-religious) organization HIAS, which was created and funded by Jews to save Jewish refugees during and after WWII, also helps refugees of all kinds from any country. And it also does that in countries outside the US.

    The response I’m seeing here to the issue of health benefits is irrational. The health benefits are determined by looking at statistics. The fact that someone does or doesn’t have a problem with their uncircumcised penis isn’t relevant; risk is determined by looking at large populations, not at individuals.

    Quotes below are from this paper by two doctors, on the US National Institute of Health website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/

    “Three randomized trials in Africa demonstrated that adult male circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%, and the long-term follow-up of these study participants has shown that the protective efficacy of male circumcision increases with time from surgery. These findings are consistent with a large number of observational studies in Africa and in the United States that found male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men.”

    “Two trials demonstrated that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring genital herpes by 28% to 34%, and the risk of developing genital ulceration by 47%.”

    “the trials found that male circumcision reduces the risk of oncogenic high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) by 32% to 35%”

    The article goes on to say that the benefits extend to female sexual partners of circumcised men.

    “the risk of HR-HPV for female partners was reduced by 28%, the risk of bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and the risk of trichomoniasis was reduced by 48%.”

    So the benefits are non-trivial, and they are for both genders, and the statistics show it.

    “the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health Organization adopted a policy advocating male circumcision in countries and regions with heterosexual HIV epidemics.”

    Infant male circumcision is a parental choice, like vaccination. Opposition to it in the face of the statistics is irrational.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Here we go again…
    Someone thinks he’s a rational atheist, but he’s a religious freak at heart.

  36. Choirboy says:

    Anonymous, absolutely.
    Comparing vaccination to cutting bits off your son’s member is what is truly irrational. There is no shortage of people whose ‘belief system’ includes beating their defenceless children because it will do them good ( spare the rod!) but fortunately we now have laws which attempt to prevent it in the interests of those beaten. Presumably as the perpetrators of such violence will likely take measures to avoid discovery and punishment the law should be abandoned.
    We can only assume from that lengthy irrelevance that the early Jewish tribes who started the barbaric practice had access to all this scientific gen and did it in the interests of the health of their defenceless babies. It’s arrant nonsense, isn’t it and the resource to the red herring of health is a truly irrational attempt to justify what is no more than a religious ritual wounding, one clue being that it is perpetrated too often by a religious figure. The idea that it is a ‘parental choice’ to disfigure your helpless child I find truly abhorrent and about as far away from rational behaviour as you can get.
    To adduce the American population as any kind of example of rationality, as I said before, seems a bit dodgy to me. Support for the Orange One, abandoning Roe v Wade, the wilful misinterpretation of The Second to prevent measures to save schoolchildren from mass murder and so on.
    As Anonymous said, don’t pretend to be a rational atheist while promoting Religious Ritual Wounding of infants.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Choirboy wrote:
    “As Anonymous said, don’t pretend to be a rational atheist while promoting Religious Ritual Wounding of infants.”

    And that is a dishonest mischaracterization of what I wrote.

    “To adduce the American population as any kind of example of rationality, as I said before, seems a bit dodgy to me.”

    ignores that the medical kink

  38. Laripu says:

    … continued.
    the medical link.

    Rust Choirboy ascribing this to Jewish tribes explains a lot too.

  39. Laripu says:

    Choirboy wrote:
    “As Anonymous said, don’t pretend to be a rational atheist while promoting Religious Ritual Wounding of infants.”

    And that is a dishonest mischaracterization of what I wrote.

    This by Choirboy:
    “To adduce the American population as any kind of example of rationality, as I said before, seems a bit dodgy to me.”

    .. ignores the medical link, and the UN/WHO decision. And no-one said anything about the American population’s rationality, only about their medical choices, which after all are made on the advice of their doctors.

    That Choirboy ascribes all this to ancient Jewish tribes explains a lot too, considering that the vast majority of religious-based circumcisions are done by Muslims.

    Whether or not X is good or bad doesn’t depend on who introduced X. I must presume that from Choirboy’s position, that he possesses of moral superiority, and Choirboy’s tribe has never done anything reprehensible. He must be perfect!

    So to sum up Choirboy’s position:
    – statistics are bad
    – Jews are bad
    – Americans are stupid
    – the UN and WHO don’t exist
    – anyone who doesn’t want their son to have a foreskin is a religious nut

    Brilliant! I wish you luck with a capital F.

  40. Donn says:

    Have I ever encountered this level of obsession with circumcision, elsewhere? Is it a national thing? I mean I know there’s a lot here from the UK and maybe there circumcision really has something to do with religion, for whatever reason it’s a real issue? As pointed out above, in the US it isn’t so much, and this level of interest would seem like maybe a fetish.

  41. Choirboy says:

    Laripu, ‘Why look you how you storm!’. (Shylock)
    I simply referred to the Jewish religion as that is what was invoked early in the discussion and you had referred to it. ( and as I recall this is a site devoted to religion not health issues) Of course I include the Muslim adoption of the practice as barbaric, is it is anywhere it occurs.
    Seems ‘dishonest characterisation’ works both ways.
    I do not ignore the medical link but it is largely irrelevant to whether the practice of mutilating babies is acceptable. Simple question – is the removal of a perfectly healthy piece of flesh from a person a mutilation? To my mind it clearly is and no amount of possible subsequent marginal ‘advantages’ make the process acceptable.
    I can only guess that a similar excising of all female babies’ labia majora ( not minora because that would be FGM and be bad!) would have possible health benefits which could be measured by WHO but I doubt it will be suggested this late in the day and it’s not in any ‘Holy book’ so far as I know.
    It is a remarkable leap of imagination from my criticism of a single activity to the conclusion that ‘all Jews are bad’, as is the suggestion that I think ‘ Americans are stupid’. I subscribe to neither view and have the greatest admiration for the highly intelligent US lawyers, many of them Jewish commenting on the current situation in the States ( I warmly recommend The Meidastouch on youtube).
    The facts remain, however, that a disturbingly large proportion of Americans subscribe to some entirely irrational beliefs, one of which would most certainly find no home in the forum in which we find ourselves. I already adduced Roe, gun control and the willingness to join a cult which threatens the very existence of the Republic in the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence.
    Am I allowed to guess that many of those same folk, like the parents of my son in law, had their kids ‘done’ because it was the done thing? Wouldn’t be surprised if they had a few naff tattoos either. Group pressure can be a powerful thing.
    Why would my holding a point of view and expressing it suggest a claim to moral superiority any more than your doing the same?
    I have no tribe other than possibly a few Vikings way back and I won’t be in any hurry to defend some of their reported habits for which ‘reprehensible’ might be major understatement.
    I wish you luck and you can keep the ‘L’

  42. Laripu says:

    Ok Choirboy, that was spoken like a gentleman. (Actually written like a gentleman, but I’m done with quibbles for the day.)

    To my mind, circumcision is not a big deal. Do it or don’t do it, I don’t care. But don’t legislate against it, any more than we should legislate against abortion. Other people’s son’s foreskins are mostly not within governmental purview… with the exception that if it is done, it ought to be done by licensed medical professionals.

  43. Choirboy says:

    Donn, I’m not sure what fetishism has to do with a subject being raised and points of view expressed on it. I rather thought that’s what happened here.
    Certainly here in the UK the amount of secular circumcision is pretty minimal, I’m pleased to say but I wouldn’t like to guarantee it when enough people latch on to the practice over the pond. I can’t remember who said, ‘when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold’.

  44. Choirboy says:

    Laripu, touché.

  45. Donn says:

    What fetishism has to do with a subject being raised and points of view expressed on it? It would, if present, play a role in the level of interest on the matter, and the consequent frequency and perhaps intensity of expression of points of view.

    The wikipedia article is quite extensive and might be interesting to those who can’t stop thinking about mutilated willies. It confirms that the UK has relatively low rate –

    It is widespread in Australia, Canada, the United States, South Korea, most of Africa, and parts of Asia. It is relatively rare for non-religious reasons in parts of Southern Africa, Latin America, Europe, and parts of Asia.

  46. Choirboy says:

    Donn, you may be right in relation to those who are preoccupied by it as part of their life day to day. Personally I rarely think about it until the subject is raised and I feel I should respond.

  47. M27Holts says:

    I think that people supply the spurious stats to support a ridiculous practice based on bronze age superstition and religious group-think. It’s a fact that removal of the foreskin reduces glans penis sensitivity and reduces some of the pleasurable design features built into a well designed device for depositing sperm in a vagina…Leavr well alone, unless the clinical removal is required for whatever reason…do not chop bits off children for any ridiculous fad or historical reason. End of…

  48. M27Holts says:

    I only brought it up, because it is one of the more serious religious crimes against children. Mind you I would also.ban schools from filling young childrens heads with utter drivel and nonsense and telling them lies. You can let the childrens imaginations run along with any fantasy themes so as to enable them to think outside the box…but don’t feed them dogma and tell them it’s true…and always stress that the paranormal and quantum physics are not comparable…

  49. Donn says:

    “It’s a fact that removal of the foreskin reduces glans penis sensitivity and reduces some of the pleasurable design features built into a well designed device for depositing sperm in a vagina.”

    As a “fact”, it doesn’t seem to be widely agreed on, e.g. see The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision “Technical Report”. And empirically, it seems that plenty of sperm gets deposited, presumably accompanied by the usual sensations.

    It strikes me as an interesting wrinkle on evolution. Given the epidemiological advantages, one might think the foreskin would eventually disappear on its own, but in most of the world society has preemptively effected an evolutionary step. It’s the only example like it I can think of – these days anyway, tonsillectomy and removal of third molars normally happens only when necessary.

  50. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: “It’s a fact that removal of the foreskin reduces glans penis sensitivity …” I take it from that statement that you have been “cut” and can compare your experiences of sex and other penis use before and after the operation.

    I am uncomfortable with your phrase “the pleasurable design features built into a well designed device …” – it smacks of a belief in creationism, which of course on this forum is tantamount to blasphemy.

    Please watch your language!

  51. M27Holts says:

    I’m a Cavalier me. And obviously I am referring to the trial and error design that natural selection acts upon to reward optimal function at an acceptible cost over time and the power of optimal genes to proliferate in the gene pool…I know that the watchmaker is blind…

  52. M27Holts says:

    And surely basic physics tells us that if you remove tissue containing nerve endings then you are reducing sensitivity and also the glans penis of a roundhead is consrtantly being rubbed against the material of the sack-cloth undercrackers that the religious like to wear under their clothes – these religious types don’t like erotic underwear do they? Satan invented those, every zealot knows that…

  53. Choirboy says:

    An interesting wrinkle on evolution? Blimey. If only the process of natural selection had read the WHO information just think how much better off we would have been with all of our knob ends exposed to those sack-cloth undercrackers. No need to resort to the razor blade on babies’ privates and everybody happy.
    I wonder why it’s the only example that comes to mind. I have to say I’ve often wondered why we don’t have eyes in the back of our head given its obvious advantages. Another failure of evolution clearly.
    ‘World society has preemptively effected an evolutionary step’ really does beg the question and the fact that other surgery on tonsils and molars is only performed when necessary is rather the point being made isn’t it? Circumcision is entirely unnecessary however many people decide to do it.

  54. Donn says:

    The medical world has considered the prophylactic value of tonsillectomy, and decided there isn’t any.

    It has considered the prophylactic value of circumcision, and found that there’s plenty to justify it, hence recommendations. If evolution produced perfect results, we’d like have no foreskins – or we’d be immune to all those ailments.

  55. M27Holts says:

    Just making things up to justify a clearly stupid practice is what cultrural apologists do best, and I think that it is high time rhat such cherry-picked bollocks should be as laughed at as the clearly stupid religions that spawned them…

  56. Choirboy says:

    Well red herrings abound. Is the suggestion that the religious mutilation of a child’s genitals which has to be done during daylight by a religious man standing in a zinc bath facing north (otherwise it doesn’t count) is prompted by the concern that in twenty years time he will have a possible twenty five per cent improved chance of not catching HIV?
    Of course not. It’s because of some tinpot belief that instructions were left by a man in the sky thousands of years ago.
    Surgical treatment of tonsillitis and molars are elective procedures opted for or not by sentient adults. They can take it or leave it, unlike the babies being sliced up.
    My nephew’s wife recently opted for the former so I obviously need to contact her with a warning that her doctor is a charlatan subjecting her to pointless suffering.

  57. Laripu says:

    In 2000, my wife had breast cancer in one breast. The safest option was mastectomy followed some weeks later by truly horrible chemotherapy. She opted for a simultaneous prophylactic removal of the other breast, to prevent a possible recurrence of breast cancer.

    She’s still alive. (And right now, walking our dogs. 🙂 ) She had a small, local, and unrelated lung cancer, and the middle lobe of her right lung was removed in 2021, without the need for chemo.

    Prophylactic measures can be important for preventing disease.

  58. Laripu says:

    Choirboy you keep saying “religious mutilation”,’when it’s been established that the vast majority circulations in the United States are not done for religious reasons.

    Here are circulation rates by country:

  59. Laripu says:

    Sorry circumcisions. Auto correct.

  60. Tomas says:

    There are things to say about the claimed health benefits of circumcision cited by Laripu on August 6, 2023 at 4:03 pm above:

  61. Anonymous says:

    Laripu says: “it’s been established that the vast majority circumcisions in the United States are not done for religious reasons.”
    Religious reasons or not, I find it obvious that they are performed to make masturbation more difficult/less pleasurable.

  62. Donn says:

    The sexual aspect has been studied as well. No effect.

  63. M27Holts says:

    Those frantically searching for any stats to justify non-clinical mutilation. You are sadists. End of. And Laripu, so all girls at 14 should have their tits cut off to prevent them getting breast cancer…get a grip lad. Stop defending the child mutilator culture….and donn. Bollocks. Having a foreskin gives you more nerve endings and more friction Thus, physics tells me that sex must be more pleasurable…you are like a blind man telling an eagle he sees dar more clearly thru the force…bollocks and triple bollocks…

  64. M27Holts says:

    And you two should sue the fook out of the sadist who mutilated your knobs .

  65. M27Holts says:

    In fact you are like vegans telling me their meat-free bratwurst is like the real thing…Empirical testing showed me that was complete bollocks too. .

  66. Choirboy says:

    The practice obviously originated as religious ritual and continues as such among believers in the man in the clouds and instructions he left thousands of years ago. The spurious claims for health benefits, which the link supplied above by Tomas comprehensively undermines are simply a later rationalisation to make it appear acceptable.
    Limited statistics gleaned from sub-Saharan Africa of adult populations where HIV is rampant do not in any way transfer to North America and anyway there are perfectly adequate hygiene measures other than attacking the bodily integrity of innocent babies without their consent.
    The claimed health benefits would presumably be at least as welcome to females were there a chance to excise the outer labia shortly after birth. Fortunately for them even research into that is illegal. ‘This is because non- therapeutic surgery performed on the genitals of healthy girls – no matter how slight and under what material conditions- are deemed to be impermissible mutilations in Western law.’ What price equality under the law?
    The CDC has this hidden away in a technical adjunct; ‘delaying circumcision until adulthood or adolescence obviates concerns about violations of autonomy and therefore any disadvantages associated with such deferral would be ethically compensated to some extent by the respect for the bodily integrity and autonomy of the individual.’
    Lose the ‘adolescence’ and I’ll go with that. There will undoubtedly still be some blokes who will be misled into the process by the chap doing their tattoo but I reckon nowhere near as many and at least they’ll have the choice.
    All the health stuff is entirely unreliable and a red herring. The issue is a moral one and the law protecting girls clearly indicates what the position on all individuals should be.

  67. M27Holts says:

    I don’t understand Tattoos either. If I want to promote or display my predilection for a music band or sports team, I can buy a t-shirt or beanie- hat and wear it down the pub. I have no need to have MUFC tattooed inside my lip to prove “I’m hard” like some of my peers at school did..mostly empty-heads seemingly…same with peircings? I always think that they subtract from the natural beauty of a lady, especially nose and mouth piercings…horrible things, but hey it’s a free world and the sheeples will always conform in theur none-conformity…

  68. M27Holts says:

    Choirboy…we are clearly singing from rhe same hymnsheet…imagine the kefuffle if it was boys who were protected by law and girls weren’t….

  69. Son of Glenner says:

    Now, get ready for someone to wheel out statistics showing the health benefits of tattoos in Samoan society!

  70. M27Holts says:

    Well having a liver-bird tattoo could definately shorten your life in Manchester thats for sure…

  71. Laripu says:

    Anonymous wrote “I find it obvious that they are performed to make masturbation more difficult/less pleasurable.”

    Your sense of what is obvious is broken beyond repair in this regard. My 8 year old self discovered it. It was not difficult at all.

    Such a belief, without any evidence, is not any different than religion. The whole discussion has become “fû¢k your statistics”.

    Exactly like “fû¢k your evolution, I believe in Adam and Eve”.

    Irrational. I’m out. Enjoy your weenie-obsession.

  72. Choirboy says:

    Laripu, no that’s not ‘obvious’ at all and I wonder what kept you till 8!
    Sorry you’re off but I reckon you’ll be back. It has got a bit circular hasn’t it and from my point of view it’s more a case of, ‘ lies, damn lies and statistics, and ‘fuck your morals’.
    Weenie obsession? Every accusation an admission!
    I’m off to the cheap seats too!

  73. M27Holts says:

    Like I said. You are either for chopping bits off kids or you are against it. If you can’t chop bits off vulvas, but can off penises then that has to be sexist. No? Homosexuality was illegal in the UK till fairly recently, but lesbianism wasn’t. Again, blatant sex bias in law…and the UK should pass new laws to protect both sexes from ignorant savages who wish to cling on to an archaic and ridiculous religious based ritual….and if banning mutilating children upsets sonebody because they think their invisible friend requires it…the bring it on…

  74. M27Holts says:

    And if the Hitch was here to produce a far more erudite argument then the non-cock-choppers would clearly win the day…

  75. Rrr says:

    Author, please drop the next cartoon soon!
    My eyes begin to bleed and my scrolling finger is numb.

  76. Rrr says:

    Oh thank you, Author!


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.