Again, it does not even have this.
Hear, hear.
Way to pay attention. It should have been a slight clue to you when he said “as a European man” that he is not circumcised and does “like his pee pee” the way it is, and is horrified by circumcision because he knows what is taken away. Same goes for me: I lucked out, as an American boy born overseas where RIC was not offered in the hospital. By the time my parents got back to the U.S. a few months later, they were used to me in my natural state and left it alone (thank fucking gawd). My dad, who was circumcised, did ask me once when I was around ten years old if I wanted to have it done. I was so vehement in shaking my head in the negative, I later realized I might have made him feel bad.
And I do feel sorry for all the guys who were circumcised against their will, before they can remember, and I absolutely understand the psychology behind why they must keep insisting to themselves that they are just fine this way, or heck, even better than fine. It’s just really sad and pathetic to observe from the outside looking in.
In the Pit? I’m not sure that is possible.
OTOH the intactivist/circumfetishist segment do seem constitutionally unable to avoid trying to make any topic their topic.
Quite so - or else ‘God told me to shoot you in the face’ would be enough excuse for murder.
That sounds important enough to have its own thread!
Why don’t you go start one?
Preferably on Reddit.
No, you’re sad and pathetic.
I absolutely understand the psychology of someone using this pathetic attempt to deflect arguments to the contrary so they can always reassure themselves that they must be righteous and correct despite any conflicting evidence. So now we’re both full of absolute understanding 
Debatable. It may even affect the woman’s pleasure.
Not necessarily.
Does so.
I paid all the attention I needed to when it was discovered the poster was a slack-jawed yokel with dumb ideas.
I don’t have to delve into the details, just as I don’t need to consider the arguments of conspiracy theorists, MRAs, creationists and the like. Once I see you’re a delusional anti-circ loony (and by comparing it to FGM you out yourself right off the bat) then there’s no need to get into it any deeper.
Idiots will continue to be conspiracy theorists, MRAs, creationists and anti-circ activists no matter how often their flawed, bullshit “logic” is discussed intelligently.
So the best thing to do (especially in this forum) is to point, laugh, and explain in the most broad terms why the person is an idiot just in case someone comes along and thinks that those dumb things are true because they have not been challenged. I have better things to do with my time than to consider counters to people who believe dumb things.
Case in point: The only thing in your post i read was what I quoted.
Your cite sucks.
Yeah, at the point where someone cites circumcision.org or cirp.org, you can safely check out because they’re not serious about it. Might as well link to some Earth Mother woo site about their antivax stances.
I did love how the “study” is not named or linked to. Just trust us on this! 
Hahahahahahahaha…
This just in: Women who read anti-circumcision newsletters think sex with uncircumcised men is better! Film at eleven. Holy shit, you’re kidding me, right?
Edit: I’m going to stop relying to this nonsense now in this thread out of respect of the people who wish to discuss FGM. Sorry for the hijack, got away from myself.
Good god, do I hate intactivists. So much. Some of them must keep their brains in their foreskins.
A smart lawyer would make sure the woman in the OP faced a jury with at least 2 male jurors, preferably one cut and one uncut. She’d never be convicted because the jury room would devolve into those two talked about their own dicks, endlessly, until the other jurors begged to be released.
Yeah, fuck having a clit, labia or foreskin.
Possible in the sense of breaking a board rule? No.
Possible in the sense of still being fucking annoying? So much yes.