all 7 comments

[–]Zapped 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Something about using the eye cream and making people cock-eyed.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Seems like a stupid gimmick. Unless they contain stem cells, how can baby dicks actually do anything but be a "little filler" in the otherwise non-sexual cream? Why not use real man cream?

Zionist plot.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think they do contain stem cells. Somehow they multiple the foreskin cells into more.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

At what point do they cease to be foreskin cells and become mass-reproduced commodity cells?

How much is scientifically verified to have measurable effects, and is it even worth it for the vanities of old ladies well past their prime?

Who even came up with the idea in the first place?

[–]HongKongPhooey 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


[–]IkeConn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Does she drink that sweet sweet Democrat baby juice that my wife claims Hillary drinks?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Boys are being sexually mutilated and having parts of their penises harvested for profit, and the author of this article decides to use this as an opportunity to talk about how girls are the real victims? What the fuck?

I’m not really sure how I feel about this whole baby-foreskin-beauty-cream.

Really? It's not complicated. Doctors found a new way to profit off of circumcision, so now they're going to push this unnecessary and harmful procedure even more. It was always about profit for them.

But don’t compare female genital mutilation to male circumcision.

What else should we compare it to, if not the thing that most resembles it?

I think we can all agree that we are not oppressing boys when we circumcise them.

No. It's socially acceptable to amputate part of a boy's genitals, but not a girl's. There's not a single country in the world that has banned male circumcision. No matter where you go, you are legally allowed to cut off your young son's foreskin for any reason (or no reason at all), and you don't need his consent. It's discrimination on the basis of sex on a global scale, that sounds like a form of oppression to me.

but we aren’t doing it because we think they are whores by nature who cannot be trusted with their libidos.

This is literally why American circumcision exists. To prevent boys from enjoying masturbation, to deter "self-abuse."

See: John Harvey Kellogg