NationStates Jolt Archive

I have that cicumcision is something that is wrong but people dont give it much thought. I personally am against it because I believe that people shouldnt have unnessisary surgery. Also 200 infants die every year in the United States alone from circumcision. I also think that parents dont have the right to do that to there child. If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?

It's easier to keep clean if you're cut.

If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half
:confused:

It's easier to keep clean if you're cut.
Yeah, no smegma.

They don't cut it in half, they just remove some of the skin.

I have that cicumcision is something that is wrong but people dont give it much thought. I personally am against it because I believe that people shouldnt have unnessisary surgery. Also 200 infants die every year in the United States alone from circumcision. I also think that parents dont have the right to do that to there child. If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?

I think he got snubbed because a woman thought his nob stank.

It's also necessary in some cases e.g. guy in my Primary School has a foreskin that was sealed over at the end when he was born :eek:

It's easier to keep clean if you're cut.

Yes but what about the ears? It is very easy for dirt to get caught in the ears so how about we just cut our ears off... That way we cant get ear infections. To me the logic of circumsision is just as rediculas as that.

Circumcision is a tricky one, since it's a religious practice, but ultimately in my eyes it's an act of mutilation against somebody who isn't able to decide for themselves. I think circumcision should be legal, but only for a consenting, sane adult, not a newly born child.

I think he got snubbed because a woman thought his nob stank.

I haven't met any women that like a man uncut. But I'm in America...

You can keep just as clean without circumcision. And you can be a dirty, smelly bastard WITH circumcision. It's not medically necessary. If it's part of your culture, no problem. In Canada, it's no longer done automatically, you have to pay for it. My parents never questioned it, and let my brothers be circumcised, but I don't plan on doing that to any sons I may have. Not for no reason, and it isn't part of my culture. That being said, it doesn't seem to hurt anything. Each to their own on this one.

Yes but what about the ears? It is very easy for dirt to get caught in the ears so how about we just cut our ears off... That way we cant get ear infections. To me the logic of circumsision is just as rediculas as that.
...
Umm, interesting analogy. Incorrect, but interesting...

I'm pretty sure you could get an ear infection if you were missing your external ear, and you kind of need your internal ear to hear.

are you sure about the 200 children dying stat???

And our ears help us to hear better, with the sound bouncing off in various directions and shit like that, so in that respect its more useful to keep them. The foreskin however appears to have no specific use.

I've seen pictures of uncircumsized penises and I'm personally very glad mine does not look like that.

Where is circumcision still practiced? Is it common in the US still? I think most guys just want their boys to look like them, so if they're cut, they have their boys cut, and if not, then not. It isn't all that common in Latin America unless you're Jewish or Arab.

You can keep just as clean without circumcision. And you can be a dirty, smelly bastard WITH circumcision. It's not medically necessary. If it's part of your culture, no problem. In Canada, it's no longer done automatically, you have to pay for it. My parents never questioned it, and let my brothers be circumcised, but I don't plan on doing that to any sons I may have. Not for no reason, and it isn't part of my culture. That being said, it doesn't seem to hurt anything. Each to their own on this one.

Not scientific here, but I've talked to quite a few women over the years. They all seemed to indicate that an uncut man doesn't last as long.

I have that cicumcision is something that is wrong but people dont give it much thought. I personally am against it because I believe that people shouldnt have unnessisary surgery. Also 200 infants die every year in the United States alone from circumcision. I also think that parents dont have the right to do that to there child. If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?

200 infants die every year from circumcision? Do you have a link?

It's easier to keep clean if you're cut.
In this age of hygene (sp?) it doesn't matter much

I've seen pictures of uncircumsized penises and I'm personally very glad mine does not look like that.
They're not that weird...they're still penii (hehehehe). It really makes no difference to me. I think we have these attitudes about circumcised penii (sorry, I just have to) that don't really have much to do with hygiene or anything else. It's just become a part of US (and Canadian) culture.

Yeah, I'm not circumsized, but I would be if I could go back and choose.

Not scientific here, but I've talked to quite a few women over the years. They all seemed to indicate that an uncut man doesn't last as long.
I can tell you from vast experience as an uberslut that this is not true. Depends on the guy, not his foreskin.

200 infants die every year from circumcision? Do you have a link?

Go to google and look up death by circumsision. It is somthing like that.

As for those of you saying that it looks weird. Well it looks the same with an erection so I dont think that part is argueable.

In this age of hygene (sp?) it doesn't matter much

If you're in the field as a soldier, and you're bathing with baby wipes, it does matter.

If you're in the field as a soldier, and you're bathing with baby wipes, it does matter.
And how many men are? :rolleyes:

For some people it's a medical reason, me for example.

And how many men are? :rolleyes:
Since most of us only serve 4 years, it's in the millions.

I've seen uncut guys who got a bit sandy.

Yeah, I'm not circumsized, but I would be if I could go back and choose.
You could still get one, I think
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1514.html

Go to google and look up death by circumsision. It is somthing like that.

As for those of you saying that it looks weird. Well it looks the same with an erection so I dont think that part is argueable.

Alrighty - thank you!

Yeah, I'm not circumsized, but I would be if I could go back and choose.

You can still have it done. My grandfather had it done a few months before he died at the age of 69.

In my opinion, an uncut penis isn't very pretty. ::shudder::

If you're in the field as a soldier, and you're bathing with baby wipes, it does matter.
Are you planning on wooing the ladies while in the field as a soldier? Or your fellow soldiers? Otherwise, its probably not an issue.

For some people it's a medical reason, me for example.
So if it is necessary, do it. If it isn't, why bother? Is it just vanity? (Hey, I think all penises look just fine, cut or not. They're really all ugly veiny things:))

Are you planning on wooing the ladies while in the field as a soldier? Or your fellow soldiers? Otherwise, its probably not an issue.
I think he meant hygeine and infections and such could happen.

If you're in the field as a soldier, and you're bathing with baby wipes, it does matter.

So I take it soldiers in the field will also shave of all (and I mean all) their body hair?

Poppycock! You can keep your Mr. Johnson all nice and clean - no problem at all, even if you only have "baby wipes". All you need is some clean water. And that´s it. If you take a shower every day you won´t loose any sleep over it.

Circumsion is a degenerate act of mutilation which no longer serves a purpose - safe for religious purposes which are acceptable. From a medical point of view, circumsion serves no purpose in the western world, neither for medical, "sexual" or hygiene reasons. At least that´s what my doctor says and I assume he - as a doctor - knows what he is talking about, though some other doctor might disagree.

It is a common practise in some countries to "snip it off" right after birth, which I´d rate as a serious infraction of my civil rights - my body, my foreskin, my right to choose. The only reason why it is done is that some doctor can rack up another 100 bucks on the hospital bill. That´s all.

Im cut, and Im proud. Ive never had a complaint about my longevity as it were, and I dont think theres anything wrong with it at all. Nor is there anything wrong with it if someone does not have the tip nipped. Penii are glorious in all shapes, sizes etc. (Thanks for the new word Sin!!) This is a question of personal, and not so much medicinal value in my opinion. :)

I think he meant hygeine and infections and such could happen.
So can athletes foot. Seriously, this really isn't an issue for most men. If you think that your dick might rot off while in the field, then go ahead and get cut:) (or don't stick it in the sand?)

Not scientific here, but I've talked to quite a few women over the years. They all seemed to indicate that an uncut man doesn't last as long.

This might be because circumcision sometimes damages the frenulum, the small muscle which connects the foreskin and the penis. It plays a part in sexual pleasure, which might explain why a circumcised person might tend to take a little longer to finish.

If my sons get mad because I didn't shell out the $135 Canadian to get them snipped, they can go right ahead and get it done when they've delivered enough papers to pay for it themselves:) Just like my girls can do if they want bigger boobs.

Well, actually, I'd fight that last one tooth and nail, but...

Are you planning on wooing the ladies while in the field as a soldier? Or your fellow soldiers? Otherwise, its probably not an issue.

For those not familiar with the hygiene challenges of the infantry (for males), I will give a small lesson.

1. Keep your dick and balls clean. I mean it.
2. Wear pants, loose fitting, with no underwear. Or you'll be sorry.

Marching and walking for hours on end causes your groin area to heat up like you've never known before. It also causes chafing of any moving skin.

Between your sack and your thighs. Between your dick and your sack. And if you're not cut, and it's the slightest bit dirty with something like sand, the whole tip of your dick.

We call this, affectionately, "crotch-rot".

Since the typical infantryman will be in a sandy or dirty place, all the time, and may go without a bath for months on end, hygiene is usually accomplished with a baby wipe.

Fail to keep things dry, clean, powdered (with baby powder or Gold Bond), and you'll be unable to walk.

You've probably never seen anything like flaming red blistered nutsack, have you?
http://www.razzorr.com/post/14jan05/GoldBondPowder.wmv

The film explains it all...

Ewwwwww....

Now are you saying we should snip all boys just in case they decide to join the army? I believe you, and I didn't even have to see the nasty pictures...but again, is there any other reason to do it other than cultural?

Just curious... how common is foreskin reconsturction (un-circumsision). I know it can be done but do they do that alot or am I the only person that knows about that?

I think he got snubbed because a woman thought his nob stank.

:D

I don't think the plural for 'penis' is 'penii'.

Marching and walking for hours on end causes your groin area to heat up like you've never known before. It also causes chafing of any moving skin.

Between your sack and your thighs. Between your dick and your sack. And if you're not cut, and it's the slightest bit dirty with something like sand, the whole tip of your dick.

We call this, affectionately, "crotch-rot".


Bull. Wether you´re cut ot not doesn´t matter. I´m NOT cut and I have quite some experience with VERY long marches. You can get a "wolf" (that´s how we called it), but wether you´re cut or not doesn´t change a dime about it.

I don't think the plural for 'penis' is 'penii'.
I was kidding Sdaeriji...I know that. I was just taking liberties with the language like others have felt free to lately:)

If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?

Half???

You mean... there were 8 more inches to this thing?!?

Ewwwwww....

Now are you saying we should snip all boys just in case they decide to join the army? I believe you, and I didn't even have to see the nasty pictures...but again, is there any other reason to do it other than cultural?

No, because we live in Western Civilization.

BTW, the film is hilarious.

Half???

You mean... there were 8 more inches to this thing?!?

That's your leg, not your penis.

Excellent, then lets make circumcision a free service provided by the military when you join up. Until then, gimme back my nerve endings.

Circumsion is a degenerate act of mutilation which no longer serves a purpose - safe for religious purposes which are acceptable. From a medical point of view, circumsion serves no purpose in the western world, neither for medical, "sexual" or hygiene reasons. At least that´s what my doctor says and I assume he - as a doctor - knows what he is talking about, though some other doctor might disagree.



You may want to look at that AAFP website about the "no purpose...medical" thing.

I was kidding Sdaeriji...I know that. I was just taking liberties with the language like others have felt free to lately:)
Not to mention the fact that it paints a rather funny image in my head... or rather... about it I suppose. It might be made up, but it made me laugh - thats all the value I need in a word today! :)

(or don't stick it in the sand?)
But those soldiers just get so lonely...

I can tell you from vast experience as an uberslut that this is not true. Depends on the guy, not his foreskin.

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****

This is really a question of personal religious beliefs. Since Christianity is the most abundant religion and information and inspiration is derived from the Bible, the choice to have your child circumcised should lie in your translation of the scriptures. However the Bible is clear on the issue stating that Jews can circumcise, however Gentiles should cease this practice. If your religion is old-world, then you follow the Old Testament which orders circumcision as a religious rite of passage. Outside religion it has been the tradition of societies to have their sons circumcised, usually by a pediatric surgeon.

I believe if you want to circumcise your child, then you should. I disagree that this practice could ever be referred to as barbaric and, referring to the 200 infant deaths in the U.S., that number is extremely lower when compared to the number of people who have ANY other surgical procedure performed.

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****

Where the hell did this come from?

You may want to look at that AAFP website about the "no purpose...medical" thing.

That´s open to debate, though most of the docs/ people w/ medical background I talked to advice NOT to get cirumsized. Google around. For every "pro-circumsion" webpage you´ll get one "anti-circumsion" webpage. They all make good points, but so far the "don´t get cut" arguments from the people I know convinced me not to get cut.

Regardless of the benefits of circumcision, can you really justify cutting up a baby who has no say in the matter at all? If the guy really wants a circumcision, let him pay for it himself when he's reached a certain age. This question has probably been asked before but i dont think i've heard a good answer to it.

I have heard many a story of men who were uncircumsized and then got circumsized when older. They lost a lot of feeling Compared to what they had before they were cut. The Foreskin is there to protect the penis, and if that is not good enoguh for you, then it is there to make sex feel a ton better.

If I was a man, I wouldn't want to be cut.

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****
Are you flaming Sinuhue? Or was that supposed to be some form of humour?

Regardless of the benefits of circumcision, can you really justify cutting up a baby who has no say in the matter at all? If the guy really wants a circumcision, let him pay for it himself when he's reached a certain age. This question has probably been asked before but i dont think i've heard a good answer to it.

I remember before I was born, I was floating free in the cosmos, at one with the universe, and then my parents had to FUCK and bring my ass down here.

Did they ask me if I wanted to come down here?

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****
???

I remember before I was born, I was floating free in the cosmos, at one with the universe, and then my parents had to FUCK and bring my ass down here.

Did they ask me if I wanted to come down here?

What? If you mean you didnt have a choice of being alive, you can always change that.

That kind of sounds like a flame after reading it back, it wasnt meant to be.

What? If you mean you didnt have a choice of being alive, you can always change that.

That kind of sounds like a flame after reading it back, it wasnt meant to be.

I'm trying to channel Sam Kinnison, but it isn't working.

Now, is it Hindus or Muslims that also circumcise? I just know that during partition in India when gangs of either religion were looking for victims they would check for this to see if the people were Hindu or Muslim.

I'm trying to channel Sam Kinnison, but it isn't working.

Again, what? Now you've completely lost me.

I'm still sitting here wondering why I was flamed. :confused:

Where the hell did this come from?

i dont know i just felt like saying it

Are you flaming Sinuhue? Or was that supposed to be some form of humour?

both i guess

i dont know i just felt like saying it
Well, there are specific rules against it, so keep your tongue off me please. It's raspy.

I am of the understanding that it is only widely practiced in the US anymore. I am also told that women cant feel the difference. I definitely agree that it should not be practiced on anyone who isn't of the age or maturity to make the choice for themselves.

both i guess
And why were you flaming me exactly?

I'm so glad I'm a woman. I don't have to deal with this crap.

I'm so glad I'm a woman. I don't have to deal with this crap.

Perhaps, but I'll happily deal with the problems of circumcision if it means I don't have to deal with the problems of pregnancy.

I'm so glad I'm a woman. I don't have to deal with this crap.
Be glad you're a woman living where you do...some of the same arguments given for male circumcision (cleanliness and so on) are given for female circumcision. *shudder*

Perhaps, but I'll happily deal with the problems of circumcision if it means I don't have to deal with the problems of pregnancy.
From what I've heard, the gift of pregnancy is not a burden.

As for that crotch-rot thing: http://www.tentoseven.com/gigglesnshit/crotchrotad.jpg

Be glad you're a woman living where you do...some of the same arguments given for male circumcision (cleanliness and so on) are given for female circumcision. *shudder*
Yeah, female circumcision *shudder* would suck.

Perhaps, but I'll happily deal with the problems of circumcision if it means I don't have to deal with the problems of pregnancy.
Damn, you men win again!

From what I've heard, the gift of pregnancy is not a burden.

As for that crotch-rot thing: http://www.tentoseven.com/gigglesnshit/crotchrotad.jpg

From what I've heard, pregnancy wreaks havoc on a woman's body.

And why were you flaming me exactly?

flaming? wtf happened to insulting , do you people change words for it every year or what? :confused:

Damn, you men win again!

It's all part of the patriarchy. We planned all of this.

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****
Grr!!! :mad:

Don't flame my Canadian friends... or I will... like... be unhappy and disapointed in you! Yeah! Take that! Hah!!

(see, Canadians can be mean and have a nasty streak too!)

From what I've heard, pregnancy wreaks havoc on a woman's body.
Yup, but in the end it's worth it except for a few unfortunate cases (correct me if I'm wrong).

From what I've heard, the gift of pregnancy is not a burden.


Depends. I loved being pregnant. My best friend has never been so sick in all her life as when she was pregnant. She developed diabetes and still has it. She had a terrible, very painful labour and got a severe bladder infection which three years later still causes her problems. My labour was fine, and I'm fine.

Don't forget though, many women around the world still die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. We are pretty lucky here...those kinds of deaths are usually prevented.

So yeah, I'd take circumcision (as a man, not a woman) over child bearing I guess...

flaming? wtf happened to insulting , do you people change words for it every year or what? :confused:
Whatever. Why were you INSULTING me then? Just answer the question.

Grr!!! :mad:

Don't flame my Canadian friends... or I will... like... be unhappy and disapointed in you! Yeah! Take that! Hah!!

(see, Canadians can be mean and have a nasty streak too!)

want to go to war? my babies are even trained to kill muah ha ha ha
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

That's your leg, not your penis.

I'm tripedal?

It's all part of the patriarchy. We planned all of this.
BAHAHHHAHAHAAA! Damn those myn!

Whatever. Why were you INSULTING me then? Just answer the question.

why are you taking it seriously , its just a cool line from full metal jacket :headbang:

Depends. I loved being pregnant. My best friend has never been so sick in all her life as when she was pregnant. She developed diabetes and still has it. She had a terrible, very painful labour and got a severe bladder infection which three years later still causes her problems. My labour was fine, and I'm fine.

Don't forget though, many women around the world still die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. We are pretty lucky here...those kinds of deaths are usually prevented.

So yeah, I'd take circumcision (as a man, not a woman) over child bearing I guess...
Yeah, my mother died while giving birth to me in Syria and that's why I'm scared of becoming pregnant one day.

want to go to war? my babies are even trained to kill muah ha ha ha
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Just in case you haven't learned this yet, Ill give you a quick lesson. We Canadians are remarkable at being able to win without fighting! I will tromp you with my wit and insolent remarks until you are befuddled and have to cry in a corner at your own pathetic nature! So yay for that!

Now, on to your babies... any girls? How old? any twenty-somethings? Hot? Perhaps they'd like to meet a Canadian? :D

Grr!!! :mad:

Don't flame my Canadian friends... or I will... like... be unhappy and disapointed in you! Yeah! Take that! Hah!!

(see, Canadians can be mean and have a nasty streak too!)

SILENCE i am aware of your intentions of invading america i will be ready :mp5:

Yeah, my mother died while giving birth to me in Syria and that's why I'm scared of becoming pregnant one day.
Aww! :( *hugs*

If you ever do decide to, you'll be a fantastic mother, the world should be so lucky as to have more ladies like you. :)

Now, on to your babies... any girls? How old? any twenty-somethings? Hot? Perhaps they'd like to meet a Canadian? :D

What a P.I.M.P.

I enjoy the blatant misquoting...

SILENCE i am aware of your intentions of invading america i will be ready :mp5:
*grabs full bottle of 'Lumberjack Maple Syrup' and a fresh can of 'Full Strength Canadian Sarcasm'*

Im armed to the teeth... I hope you are!

Just in case you haven't learned this yet, Ill give you a quick lesson. We Canadians are remarkable at being able to win without fighting! I will tromp you with my wit and insolent remarks until you are befuddled and have to cry in a corner at your own pathetic nature! So yay for that!

Now, on to your babies... any girls? How old? any twenty-somethings? Hot? Perhaps they'd like to meet a Canadian? :D

you shall not corrupt my people. you pacifist canadians shall fall upon the hordes in such the case. the only thing cool about canadians are those red uniforms

Yeah, my mother died while giving birth to me in Syria and that's why I'm scared of becoming pregnant one day.
Are you serious? If so, that's terrible! A friend of mine had a terrible dream about me a few weeks before I had my first child that I was going to bleed to death during the birth. Like a GREAT friend she shared this with me. It really freaked me out! I was fine the first time, but with the second, I really did bleed a lot and the doctors got a little freaked out, so I got even more freaked out...scary. I still kind of have in the back of my mind that I might die if I have more, but I guess I just have to risk it and hope our medical care can stop that:( It's normal to be afraid...it has only been in the last half century or so that dying in childbirth in the West has become rare.

I enjoy the blatant misquoting...
Quit worrying about that and grab your can of wit!! Were in the middle of a battle royale here!! [/sarcasm]

I'm not circumcised, and I've got no problems.

What do I think about it? I think it's a religious matter, and that hospitals should stop doing it unless parents ask otherwise. My dad told me that he had to go through a lot of shit to stop them from circumcising my brother and me.

why are you taking it seriously , its just a cool line from full metal jacket :headbang:
Because nothing else you had said would suggest that you were kidding.

Aww! :( *hugs*

If you ever do decide to, you'll be a fantastic mother, the world should be so lucky as to have more ladies like you. :)

they should make a movie about this on WE lmao :D

they should make a movie about this on WE lmao :D
Ok, that was just insensitive and rude. Thats disgusting. You dont make fun of this kind of stuff Diaga - and Im being serious. No more of that crap, and you had better say youre sorry to Jamil for trivializing something like that.

...yes, where did i leave that wit again?

i had circumcision due to medical reasons.

I have no qualms about it. Neither does the other half....i still get off! :)

...yes, where did i leave that wit again?
I have a full can, but I think its time for drastic measures - this ones a real piece of work. I actually think Im getting mad here.

Are you serious? If so, that's terrible! A friend of mine had a terrible dream about me a few weeks before I had my first child that I was going to bleed to death during the birth. Like a GREAT friend she shared this with me. It really freaked me out! I was fine the first time, but with the second, I really did bleed a lot and the doctors got a little freaked out, so I got even more freaked out...scary. I still kind of have in the back of my mind that I might die if I have more, but I guess I just have to risk it and hope our medical care can stop that:( It's normal to be afraid...it has only been in the last half century or so that dying in childbirth in the West has become rare.
Yeah she died of internal bleeding that the doctors couldn't stop. My dad named me after her.

*grabs full bottle of 'Lumberjack Maple Syrup' and a fresh can of 'Full Strength Canadian Sarcasm'*

Im armed to the teeth... I hope you are!

JESUS H CHRIST HES GOT MAPLE SYRUP GET DOWN!!!

( maximus throws maple syrup on the head of one of my marines )

AH SIR ITS ALL IN MY EYES I CANT SEE AHH!!!

Ok, that was just insensitive and rude. Thats disgusting. You dont make fun of this kind of stuff Diaga - and Im being serious. No more of that crap, and you had better say youre sorry to Jamil for trivializing something like that.
I tend to ignore trolls.

JESUS H CHRIST HES GOT MAPLE SYRUP GET DOWN!!!

( maximus throws maple syrup on the head of one of my marines )

AH SIR ITS ALL IN MY EYES I CANT SEE AHH!!!
Trying to be funny at this stage doesnt change the fact that you said something very offensive about Jamil's situation. You should say youre sorry for being a jerk Diaga.

it acctually makes you look bigger

:eek: :sniper:

Ok, that was just insensitive and rude. Thats disgusting. You dont make fun of this kind of stuff Diaga - and Im being serious. No more of that crap, and you had better say youre sorry to Jamil for trivializing something like that.

i had no intentions of offending jamil , i was making fun of how you made it seem like that

I tend to ignore trolls.
I know, I should too - but when it comes to family, and in particular something like that - I dont take very kindly to it, at all.

Yeah she died of internal bleeding that the doctors couldn't stop. My dad named me after her.
Wow. That's really sad, I'm sorry. At least something good came out of it though...you :fluffle:

are you sure about the 200 children dying stat???

And our ears help us to hear better, with the sound bouncing off in various directions and shit like that, so in that respect its more useful to keep them. The foreskin however appears to have no specific use.


They say that the foreskin allows for much more pleasurable sex, but I was robbed of mine so I dont know. I am concerned because if it felt any better, I might have a heart attack. Also-my penis can not hear as well without it. I think its a bush conspiracy-somewhere, they are building a super-soldier out of all those little pieces.

Wow. That's really sad, I'm sorry. At least something good came out of it though...you :fluffle:
Thanks. I don't really talk about it but the opportunity presented itself.

Wow. That's really sad, I'm sorry. At least something good came out of it though...you :fluffle:
Agreed, and I think its beautiful that you were named after her - thats a powerful gesture.

Agreed, and I think its beautiful that you were named after her - thats a powerful gesture.
I'm thankful to my father for doing that. He was planning to name me Aisha but he decided on Elizabeth.

I have mixed feelings about circumcision.
While I'm perfectly happy with the my penis I do wonder where this fairly large scar came from and can't help but wonder if it was due to a poorly performed circumcision.

I'm not circumcised, and I've got no problems.

What do I think about it? I think it's a religious matter, and that hospitals should stop doing it unless parents ask otherwise. My dad told me that he had to go through a lot of shit to stop them from circumcising my brother and me.


I love the hygiene issue-saying its cleaner. Most people seem to be able to keep their rectums clean, I think its much simpler to wash a foreskin. Maybe American STandard would even design a special little sink to wash it in.

Circumcisions are not automatic anymore. They are elective and cost about $300.00 bucks. Of course, the doctors push it-its the quickest $300.00 they'll make. Insurance doesnt cover it.

Speaking as an american woman, I think circumcision is good. It's not a religious thing with me, but I do think it's (a) more attractive, (b) cleaner, and (c) more palatable ;) I've seen pictures of uncut men, and it was not pretty. Now, I do know that there are a ton of nerve endings in the foreskin, so uncut men orgasm more quickly, but... I'm kinda ok with a little delay on that, myself. :rolleyes: If you want to get on the subject of female circumcision, while I don't condone the way it's done generally, in some countries they only remove the skin around the clitoris (much more analogous to male circumcision, in my opinion), which can actually increase a woman's sexual pleasure. Again, I'm not saying I condone it, but if I had to pick a type, that's what I'd choose.

Oh, and it's Muslims who also circumcise their children.

In all honesty, it is easier to keep clean without the foreskin. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to keep it clean otherwise.

The ear analogy was not a very good one. The cartilage and skin around the ear serve a purpose. Foreskin really doesn't. Thus, I will say that I think it should still be standard operating procedure as a normal post-delivery operation (It is supposed to be a lot less painful just after birth than later in life.) with the option for a parent to refuse it.

you are the lowest form of life on earth you arnt even a human ******* being you are nothing but an unorganized grabasstic piece of amphibian ****


Your name sounds like royalty-are you royalty?

Oh, and it's Muslims who also circumcise their children.
Thanks! I've been wondering that for a while!

Yeah, female circumcision *shudder* would suck.


I dont think the female circumcision is performed when the female is an infant-I think they are older. And I dont think we are talking about sterile conditions or instruments either.

I dont think the female circumcision is performed when the female is an infant-I think they are older. And I dont think we are talking about sterile conditions or instruments either.

Is there any kind of medical benefit to female circumcision at all?

Is there any kind of medical benefit to female circumcision at all?


I think the intent was to keep the woman loyal to her spouse- I think it removes all pleasure from intercourse, so she wouldnt be tempted to stray.
I dont think there are any arguable benefits to it.

Circumcision is a tricky one, since it's a religious practice, but ultimately in my eyes it's an act of mutilation against somebody who isn't able to decide for themselves. I think circumcision should be legal, but only for a consenting, sane adult, not a newly born child.

i agree

I think the intent was to keep the woman loyal to her spouse- I think it removes all pleasure from intercourse, so she wouldnt be tempted to stray.
I dont think there are any arguable benefits to it.

Well I knew that, I was just wondering if there were any actual benefits to the women.

I think the intent was to keep the woman loyal to her spouse- I think it removes all pleasure from intercourse, so she wouldnt be tempted to stray.
I dont think there are any arguable benefits to it.
That sounds perfectly awful. What the hell is wrong with people. :(

Well I knew that, I was just wondering if there were any actual benefits to the women.

no. none. it is bad

I really have no clue if I was or not. Doesn't matter too much anyways, so no worries.
*goes into corner and starts bitting nails*

no. none. it is bad

I'd say that applies to male circumcision too.

Yeah, you over exagerated there, I am circumcized, and it's not cut in half, they just take that ugly piece of skin off the top, makes it look alot better for the ladies. I've seen my friends dick that wasn't circumcized, and compared to mine, it's UGLY with a capital U. Looks like someone put a skin coloured condom on top and poked at the top of it with a nail.

Plus I think someone else mentioned it, but I assume it would be alot easier to keep it clean.

I'd say that applies to male circumcision too.

Male circumcision has the advantage of reducing cleanliness related disease.

If you live somewhere hot.

And don't wash.

Ever.

I really have no clue if I was or not.
Err, how would you not notice?
:confused:

I'd say that applies to male circumcision too.

There is a reduced risk of infection for a circumsized male, but as I understand it is almost nil nowadays.

Has anybody called bs on the "200 fatalities per year" load? Any research on this at all will show 3 male circumcision infection fatalities in the U.S. *since 1959.*

Has anybody called bs on the "200 fatalities per year" load? Any research on this at all will show 3 male circumcision infection fatalities in the U.S. *since 1959.*

it's still unnecessary surgery, which goes against the fundamental risk limitation practice in medicine

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm

it's still unnecessary surgery, which goes against the fundamental risk limitation practice in medicine

Yeah, but there's no anesthetic, which is where the biggest risk lies. Three since 1959!

Err, how would you not notice?
:confused:
I don't know. Probally am, just because the majority of the rest of the nation is.

it's still unnecessary surgery, which goes against the fundamental risk limitation practice in medicine

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm
People get unnecessary cosmetic surgery all the time.

There is a reduced risk of infection for a circumsized male, but as I understand it is almost nil nowadays.

Thats what i mean.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=cut&word2=uncut

The googlefight has spoken!

People get unnecessary cosmetic surgery all the time.

and i'm not in favour of that either.

But circumcision isn't even an individual choice

it's still unnecessary surgery, which goes against the fundamental risk limitation practice in medicine

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm

And not to call your source carzy or anything, but check this out:

http://www.noharmm.org/pud.htm

And not to call your source carzy or anything, but check this out:

http://www.noharmm.org/pud.htm

where are your figures from?

here's a scientific paper

Estimated circumcision related deaths are 229 per year. Baker RL. Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous. Sexual MedicineToday 1979;3(11):35-36

your figures are just plain wrong.

Fact is, kids, that an uncircumsized penis looks like a banana slug ...

http://mongabay.org/images/big_basin_2004/banana_slug_1.gif

Any way you slice it, the Conquistador look is the way to go.

http://www.texiancowboy.com/art/images/Conquistador.jpg

Don't give me crap about child abuse or mutilation, either. That's just stupid and probably comes from the point of view of someone who's never had kids. You'll do far worse to scar them by scaring the shit out of them with the vacuum cleaner when they're 2 then you ever could by removing an excess and useless flap of skin (which has no nerve endings in it).

Fact is, kids, that an uncircumsized penis looks like a banana slug ...

http://mongabay.org/images/big_basin_2004/banana_slug_1.gif

Any way you slice it, the Conquistador look is the way to go.

http://www.texiancowboy.com/art/images/Conquistador.jpg

Don't give me crap about child abuse or mutilation, either. That's just stupid and probably comes from the point of view of someone who's never had kids. You'll do far worse to scar them by scaring the shit out of them with the vacuum cleaner when they're 2 then you ever could by removing an excess and useless flap of skin (which has no nerve endings in it).

it is a surgical procedure that results in mutilations and complications, even death.

Why is it needed?

Fact is, kids, that an uncircumsized penis looks like a banana slug ...

http://mongabay.org/images/big_basin_2004/banana_slug_1.gif

Any way you slice it, the Conquistador look is the way to go.

http://www.texiancowboy.com/art/images/Conquistador.jpg

Don't give me crap about child abuse or mutilation, either. That's just stupid and probably comes from the point of view of someone who's never had kids. You'll do far worse to scar them by scaring the shit out of them with the vacuum cleaner when they're 2 then you ever could by removing an excess and useless flap of skin (which has no nerve endings in it).

no fucking nerve endings?

I tell you this, if I pinch it, I can feel it.

ergo nerves

You are arguing from utter ignorance

it is a surgical procedure that results in mutilations and complications, even death.

Why is it needed?

Banana Slug ... Conquistador ... are you just not paying attention? Oh, and it wasn't necessary to quote the images.

It's no more a surgical procedure than removal of a wart. Would you suggest parents never have a wart removed from their child?

You are arguing from utter ignorance

At least I know how to quote without including bulky images that don't need to be around three times and I know how to respond to a message without having to quote the whole thing a second time.

Also, stop pinching it. You'll go blind.

At least I know how to quote without including bulky images that don't need to be around three times and I know how to respond to a message without having to quote the whole thing a second time.

Also, stop pinching it. You'll go blind.

very witty

very witty

Damn skippy.

well, if there is no-one except this one comic genius to discuss this, I will stop watching this thread

well, if there is no-one except this one comic genius to discuss this, I will stop watching this thread

That's probably for the best. Otherwise, I will have to continue to debate the merits of the Conquistador over that of the banana slug.

Otherwise, I'm thinkin' you're taking this way too seriously. Incidently, Don Quixote was a Conquistador.

That's probably for the best. Otherwise, I will have to continue to debate the merits of the Conquistador over that of the banana slug.

Otherwise, I'm thinkin' you're taking this way too seriously. Incidently, Don Quixote was a Conquistador.

can you hide things in your conquistador?

NOPE.

But a banana slug...

plus with a banana slug your girlfriend (or boyfriend) can play 'hide and seek'

plus with a banana slug your girlfriend (or boyfriend) can play 'hide and seek'
WTF!?

WTF!?

sorry, the only person willing to discuss the issue insisted on some interesting conversation...

Uncircumcised penises are actually cleaner in the short term. That means, unless you don't take showers for long periods of time, there is a negligible difference in cleanliness.

I'm am American female, and I find uncut penises just as attractive. As someone else mentioned, they're all the same when they're erect. I had an uncut boyfriend who lasted -far- longer than my current cut boyfriend. It just depends on the individual and their knowledge of their body.

Plus, I don't want anyone removing my clitoral hood for the sake of 'cleanliness'. Your average uncut penis only needs as much cleaning as your average vagina.

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. " -- Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

can you hide things in your conquistador?

NOPE.

But a banana slug...

ROFL! Funny. (now you're catching on)

I can conquer with my Conquistador, though!

Plus, I don't want anyone removing my clitoral hood for the sake of 'cleanliness'. Your average uncut penis only needs as much cleaning as your average vagina.

You know the colon is a self-cleaning device.

And not to call your source carzy or anything, but check this out:

http://www.noharmm.org/pud.htm


Ok you should have warned that there is a picture in that webpage. Well I know how they reconstruct by surgery but how would you do it without surgery?

People get unnecessary cosmetic surgery all the time.

Absolutly. I know when me and my wife have a kid we're sending it in for a nose job right away. And a boob job if it's a girl. No reason she should feel unsexy as she starts to develop consiousness. [/sarcasm]

Ok that whole banana slug/conquistor thing is just weird. You have to have something wrong with you to post pictures of penises. To a man it is nasty either way. I dont believe conquistitors multilated themselves either it was the 1500s.

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. " -- Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

I never saw that particular quote, but I married a Jewish girl and so I had my work cut out (no pun intended) for me in trying to convince her against circumcision.

Eventually I convinced her that the only reason American doctors outside the Jewish faith started to favor circumcision was that Victorians thought that it would cure masturbation. When it didn't work we just started coming up with other reasons for the practice, like in "the Lottery" (except they didn't bother with reasons). Or how they outlawed marijuana to cure the rising tide of criminal insanity.

I married a Jewish girl and so I had my work cut out (no pun intended) for me in trying to convince her against circumcision.

And she wanted you to conform to her religious ideals? Not to be imflammatory, but yow. Makes me glad my significant other is an atheist. No going through pain in the name of religion for either of us.

I have that cicumcision is something that is wrong but people dont give it much thought. I personally am against it because I believe that people shouldnt have unnessisary surgery. Also 200 infants die every year in the United States alone from circumcision. I also think that parents dont have the right to do that to there child. If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?
Circumcision can actually reduce the likelihood of a person contracting AIDS something like 7-fold. There's a good reason.

And are you sure about those statistics? Can we see a reference please?

7-fold? Jesus fucking Christ! Ah well, I still shower every day, and I don't miss anything. So I'm fine.

Circumcision can actually reduce the likelihood of a person contracting AIDS something like 7-fold. There's a good reason.

That is a heaping, steaming pile of male bovine feces!

There is no proof that circumcision will reduce the likelihood of contracting AIDS.

That is a heaping, steaming pile of male bovine feces!

There is no proof that circumcision will reduce the likelihood of contracting AIDS.


Good... Very good...

*puts scissors away*

That is a heaping, steaming pile of male bovine feces!

There is no proof that circumcision will reduce the likelihood of contracting AIDS.

Oh is it? Is it REALLY?
:rolleyes:

I happen to have studied this, and the foreskin is different to the underlying skin which is left behind after circumcision in that it (the foreskin) has less keratin. Keratin is a hardening protective factor that stops the virus entering the bloodstream, hence circumcised men lack the vulnerable, less keratinised foreskin.

Here's a link (http://aids.net.au/aids-circumcision.htm) with articles... You'll notice that there are lots of them.

I LOVE it when someone criticises me with no evidence. :rolleyes:

Oh is it? Is it REALLY?
:rolleyes:

I happen to have studied this, and the foreskin is different to the underlying skin which is left behind after circumcision in that it (the foreskin) has less keratin. Keratin is a hardening protective factor that stops the virus entering the bloodstream, hence circumcised men lack the vulnerable, less keratinised foreskin.

Here's a link (http://aids.net.au/aids-circumcision.htm) with articles... You'll notice that there are lots of them.

I LOVE it when someone criticises me with no evidence. :rolleyes:


Alright, then it is true. I'm still not cutting it, damnit! I'm CLEAN!

Alright, then it is true. I'm still not cutting it, damnit! I'm CLEAN!
Just watch where you put your wang! :p

Alright, then it is true. I'm still not cutting it, damnit! I'm CLEAN!
Don't cut it.

Chew it off.

Just watch where you put your wang! :p


So... Wait a minute...

I shouldn't put it in the VCR?

So... Wait a minute...

I shouldn't put it in the VCR?

Has the VCR had a blood test lately?

No, but my pencil sharpener has...

*ponders*

Circumcision can actually reduce the likelihood of a person contracting AIDS something like 7-fold. There's a good reason.


I trust condoms. Not circumcision.

All this crap about "circumcised looks better." Its a penis. Its an oddly shaped lump of skin/muscle/blood vessels that can have bulging veins along the side, can bend up, down, left, right (aka, Banana Dick). The penis is basically the ugliest thing that nature has come up with. If you're not circumcised it's ugly, if you're circumcised its still ugly.

It's easier to keep clean if you're cut.
Thats like saying "Hay if I cut off my eye lids i can keep my eyes clean!"

I've seen pictures of uncircumsized penises and I'm personally very glad mine does not look like that.

Hmmm.. question. Most circumsized penises were circumsized for religious reasons. But obviously the Creator preferred a different design. So why isn't this blasphemy, or at least saying the Creator has bad taste ? Is there a section in the Torah on this ?
Note that I'm not a member of a religion that engages in this practice, and I genuinely don't understand.

To those who say circumsized is easier to keep clean. How often you shower? Once a week?

I trust condoms. Not circumcision.
I didn't say NOT to use condoms, of course people should. I was MERELY stating a fact. I ALSO didn't say that circumcision PREVENTS the transfer of AIDS.

Fucks sake, why do people need to jump down my throat on this. One of my sources,Dr Robert Short (Royal Melbourne Hospital, Ob Gyn), explicitly states that people should still use condoms.

Edit: And if you actually read the articles you'd know that this is actually targetted at Africa and other third world areas, where ANY weapon in the fight against AIDS is useful. Also in Southern Africa circumcision used to be a widespread cultural practice, until missionaries coerced people into stopping.

13 pages, and no one's mentioned female genital mutilation...

13 pages, and no one's mentioned female genital mutilation...
I guess you can start here (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm)

Guys have it easy...

I actually think circumcision makes it a lot more hygenic. I've been working in a hospital for two years and some of the old men... ewwww... just EWWWWW. It's easier to clean, you don't have to flip around with the skin, just a quick rub rub and done, or so I was told. I only know it's a PITA with the skin if it's an old, senile, bedridden man, and I don't want to spend too much time in that area, sorry.

Also, there are medical reasons for sometimes doing it. It's called phimosis. A friend of mine had a circumcision done as a child, he simply couldn't piss without pain. Once it was removed everything was right again.

And well, once the penis is hard you're not really able to tell if it's circumcised or not anyway. Nor do I think anyone will really check in such a situation anyway.

I wonder who had the bright idea to think that it protects against the good old HI virus. But then again, you can still find people who think HIV can be transmitted by handshakes.

Also, the foreskin isn't much use to protect you from anything while you have unprotected sex.... it doesn't stay in it's place, you know.

I wonder who had the bright idea to think that it protects against the good old HI virus. But then again, you can still find people who think HIV can be transmitted by handshakes.

Did you bother to read the articles?

:rolleyes:

I am circumcised, and I'm glad I was.

I wonder who had the bright idea to think that it protects against the good old HI virus. But then again, you can still find people who think HIV can be transmitted by handshakes.
It doesn't protect you if you're circumcised, it just makes it a bit harder for it to enter your bloodstream. No one said it's effective.

Although, having said that, I do wonder how responsible it was promoting that in many African communities, where they will not necessarily understand that it only makes it slightly better.

Although, having said that, I do wonder how responsible it was promoting that in many African communities, where they will not necessarily understand that it only makes it slightly better.

If it was explained properly I see no reason why it would be harmful. African people aren't stupid... And it's being promoted along with condom use, amongst other things. (The LemonAIDS project, use of the OCP etc) Far more harmful is the fact that institutions like the Catholic Church try to debunk condomsby saying that they don't work.

I prefer uncut guys. I think circumsized penises look horrifically ugly.

Alma Mater,

Yes, in the Torah, YHWH instructed His people to do this in order to identify as those who are set apart from the rest of the world.

To all you people that said that "cleaning is easier when it's cut", I say only this.

How much easier do you need it to BE?? It's not exactly rocket science. Im uncircumsized, and happy with that, and take it from me that cleaning yourself is NOT a complicated procedure.

If it was explained properly I see no reason why it would be harmful. African people aren't stupid... And it's being promoted along with condom use, amongst other things. (The LemonAIDS project, use of the OCP etc) Far more harmful is the fact that institutions like the Catholic Church try to debunk condomsby saying that they don't work.
Oh I agree, but I spent most of last year in a Tanzanian village on a health education project, and their understanding is so rudimentary, that irrelevant details like this really should be left out. If it was misunderstood, circumcision could then be carried out in unhygienic conditions (with all the dangers that involves), and then people in many cases would think they were protected, and wouldn't need to wear condoms. It's very easy for information to be applied incorrectly if people don't fully understand it.

You're right - African people aren't stupid - our whole work was about getting them to do all the real work for us, so that they can continue after we left (and they were brilliant). But their standard of education is very very poor in many cases, so their starting from a much lower level of knowledge, and these details just aren't vital when you're putting them next to how HIV is transmitted, even how to use a condom, and debunking the myths that are so rampant.

One detail we got bogged down in once was how SIV passed from chimpanzees to humans and became HIV. We spent bloody ages wasting time on this one issue just because we made the mistake of mentioning it. The important stuff went out of the window that day.

I haven't finished putting it together yet (it's still fairly sparse), but I'm slowly building a website on my experiences there, if you're interested: http://uk.geocities.com/philhatchuk

Oh I agree, but I spent most of last year in a Tanzanian village on a health education project, and their understanding is so rudimentary, that irrelevant details like this really should be left out. If it was misunderstood, circumcision could then be carried out in unhygienic conditions (with all the dangers that involves), and then people in many cases would think they were protected, and wouldn't need to wear condoms. It's very easy for information to be applied incorrectly if people don't fully understand it.

You're right - African people aren't stupid - our whole work was about getting them to do all the real work for us, so that they can continue after we left (and they were brilliant). But their standard of education is very very poor in many cases, so their starting from a much lower level of knowledge, and these details just aren't vital when you're putting them next to how HIV is transmitted, even how to use a condom, and debunking the myths that are so rampant.

One detail we got bogged down in once was how SIV passed from chimpanzees to humans and became HIV. We spent bloody ages wasting time on this one issue just because we made the mistake of mentioning it. The important stuff went out of the window that day.

I haven't finished putting it together yet (it's still fairly sparse), but I'm slowly building a website on my experiences there, if you're interested: http://uk.geocities.com/philhatchuk


Yup, I get what you're saying. I think the big, vital things, like education about condoms and myths DO need to come first, since this is an emergency situation. Maybe trying to reintroduce circumcision as a cultural practice would be useful? I know there's a student at my uni (from Botswana) trying to do that back in Botswana. And there's this rather neat, and very cheap, circumcision kit available that drastically reduces the chance of infection.

I'll check out your site and link you to this site, that has details about the Botswana initiative, among other things. www.aids.net.au

Edt: Sorry if I sounded a bit pissed off, I was just sick of people coming into the thread and telling me I was wrong without providing any evidence or even a reason...

) Far more harmful is the fact that institutions like the Catholic Church try to debunk condomsby saying that they don't work.

FYI: The Catholic church doesn't tell people not to use condoms, they advocate not having sex. Also condomns are not 100% effective, which is all the church says. They are neither 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or at preventing the spread of HIV (even when used perfectly, and no one legitimatly claims otherwise). Abstenence on the other hand is 100% effective at stoping both (providing you are not raped, which in some parts of africa is a big contributer to the spread of aids).

Additionally the Catholic Church and affiliated organizations are one of the leading providers of aid (aid not aids) in Africa through organizations such as Catholic Relief Services. Leftist organizations don't like the church promoting abstincence, so they attack them for there educating people that condoms don't always work (though they typically do).

PS: I think promoting abstinence will do alot more to help the spread of aids than promoting circumcision. With that said I do support circumcision but its a personal/parental thing (getting circumcisised at an older age is very very painful)

FYI: The Catholic church doesn't tell people not to use condoms, they advocate not having sex. Also condomns are not 100% effective, which is all the church says. They are neither 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or at preventing the spread of HIV (even when used perfectly, and no one legitimatly claims otherwise). Abstenence on the other hand is 100% effective at stoping both (providing you are not raped, which in some parts of africa is a big contributer to the spread of aids).

Well I've heard differently from people who've actually been involved in AIDS in Africa! It may not be "official doctrine" but that's the reality of the situation. And guess what, they've tried abstinence and it DOESN'T work! The government in Botswana tried to promote it and it didn't work. Just like promoting abstinence doesn't prevent teen pregnancies, it doesn't prevent AIDS.

Additionally the Catholic Church and affiliated organizations are one of the leading providers of aid (aid not aids) in Africa through organizations such as Catholic Relief Services. Leftist organizations don't like the church promoting abstincence, so they attack them for there educating people that condoms don't always work (though they typically do).
What is the practical use of emphasising that condoms don't work? It's completely counterproductive since they DO most of the time. And way to brig completely irrelevant politics into this. We're talking about LIVES here, not politics.


And I'm NOT promoting circumcision as the ONLY tool to fight AIDS here... But I think absinence will be, and is, a pathetic failure.

FYI: The Catholic church doesn't tell people not to use condoms, they advocate not having sex. Also condomns are not 100% effective, which is all the church says. They are neither 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or at preventing the spread of HIV (even when used perfectly, and no one legitimatly claims otherwise). Abstenence on the other hand is 100% effective at stoping both (providing you are not raped, which in some parts of africa is a big contributer to the spread of aids).

Additionally the Catholic Church and affiliated organizations are one of the leading providers of aid (aid not aids) in Africa through organizations such as Catholic Relief Services. Leftist organizations don't like the church promoting abstincence, so they attack them for there educating people that condoms don't always work (though they typically do).

PS: I think promoting abstinence will do alot more to help the spread of aids than promoting circumcision. With that said I do support circumcision but its a personal/parental thing (getting circumcisised at an older age is very very painful)
Unfortunately I disagree with you on many points.

1. The Catholic Church do tell people not to use condoms. They condemn any form of contraception. This does not mean to say that they will kick up a fuss about it all the time, but that is their official position.

2. CAFOD are wonderful - unfortunately though there is a small fanatical movement within the Catholic Church against them because they don't push abstinence on people enough. Again, most Catholics and clergymen are perfectly reasonable on these issues if you address them sensitively, but there are always those that will try and enforce the Church's teaching to the letter.

3. "Leftist" organisations as you call them, do not promote condoms. They provide correct information so that people can make up their own minds. One of the problems with simply telling people what they should and shouldn't do is that it doesn't debunk any of the dangerous myths about Aids (such as "sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV" or "condoms have holes" or "you can't get pregnant or HIV your first time," or even "if you don't have sex during puberty you will not be able to have children later in life").

"Leftist" organisations simply give people facts. They tell them how HIV is transmitted, and how it can be stopped. It is taught in the order of effectiveness, ie

1. abstinence
2. waiting until you are in a loving, stable and faithful relationship
and then 3. using a condom

No one is told that condoms are 100% effective, but they are shown how to use one properly should they choose to do so. It's very easy for a condom to fail if you don't know how to put it on. No one is ever told to use one, but they are given all the correct information so that they can make a choice, something abstinence-only programmes deny them.

But that's not all they do. They promote gender equality, child rights, they help women (who are 5-7 times more vulnerable than men) and young people (who make up 60% of all new infections) to gain a little financial independence, to make them less vulnerable to others.

They teach women how to say no to sex, because currently, they can't. They debunk myths about how much money they can earn if they go to work in the city as housegirls.

They teach them about getting tested for HIV and other STIs, so that they can protect both themselves and their partners, rather than unwittingly pass on infections. They promote openness and tackle stigma so that people do not hide away and quietly spread disease.

If that's "leftist", mate, I'll take it.

Unfortunately I disagree with you on many points.

1. The Catholic Church do tell people not to use condoms. They condemn any form of contraception. This does not mean to say that they will kick up a fuss about it all the time, but that is their official position.

2. CAFOD are wonderful - unfortunately though there is a small fanatical movement within the Catholic Church against them because they don't push abstinence on people enough. Again, most Catholics and clergymen are perfectly reasonable on these issues if you address them sensitively, but there are always those that will try and enforce the Church's teaching to the letter.

3. "Leftist" organisations as you call them, do not promote condoms. They provide correct information so that people can make up their own minds. One of the problems with simply telling people what they should and shouldn't do is that it doesn't debunk any of the dangerous myths about Aids (such as "sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV" or "condoms have holes" or "you can't get pregnant or HIV your first time," or even "if you don't have sex during puberty you will not be able to have children later in life").

"Leftist" organisations simply give people facts. They tell them how HIV is transmitted, and how it can be stopped. It is taught in the order of effectiveness, ie

1. abstinence
2. waiting until you are in a loving, stable and faithful relationship
and then 3. using a condom

No one is told that condoms are 100% effective, but they are shown how to use one properly should they choose to do so. It's very easy for a condom to fail if you don't know how to put it on. No one is ever told to use one, but they are given all the correct information so that they can make a choice, something abstinence-only programmes deny them.

But that's not all they do. They promote gender equality, child rights, they help women (who are 5-7 times more vulnerable than men) and young people (who make up 60% of all new infections) to gain a little financial independence, to make them less vulnerable to others.

They teach women how to say no to sex, because currently, they can't. They debunk myths about how much money they can earn if they go to work in the city as housegirls.

They teach them about getting tested for HIV and other STIs, so that they can protect both themselves and their partners, rather than unwittingly pass on infections. They promote openness and tackle stigma so that people do not hide away and quietly spread disease.

If that's "leftist", mate, I'll take it.


Great post there.
I've heard about the "condoms have holes" thing and it pisses me off so much! One team of AIDS activists found that the best way to fight that myth is to use humour. "Of course they have holes, they have one, it's how you put it on!"
And the "sex with a virgin" thing is so distressing... :(
I'm seriously considering volunteering with the AIDS council. I'm a med student originally from South Africa, it makes sense!

Great post there.
I've heard about the "condoms have holes" thing and it pisses me off so much! One team of AIDS activists found that the best way to fight that myth is to use humour. "Of course they have holes, they have one, it's how you put it on!"
And the "sex with a virgin" thing is so distressing... :(
I'm seriously considering volunteering with the AIDS council. I'm a med student originally from South Africa, it makes sense!
Cheers. The best way to make people want to be part of something is to make it fun, so you've got to be right with the humour there. Go ahead with what you want to do, mate.

FYI: The Catholic church doesn't tell people not to use condoms, they advocate not having sex. Also condomns are not 100% effective, which is all the church says.
from an article i presented a while back:

"Relying on condoms is like betting on your own death," said Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican's spokesperson on family affairs. "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he says. Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are, at this very moment, repeating this idea across four continents, at the express direction of the Vatican.
...
The National Institutes of Health constructed a panel to examine the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease, and included anti-condom advocates on that panel. According to its report from 2001, latex condoms are impermiable to even the smallest pathogens, and HIV is actually one of the STDs that condoms are most effective against. Scientific research by groups such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health has found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable" to HIV, and that "condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission" of HIV. The World Health Organization reacted with horror to the Vatican's claims, immediately denouncing such misinformation and saying it was especially deadly to perpetuate such ideas when the world is facing a global pandemic that has already killed 20 million people.

The Vatican's Trujillo responded to these points: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognizable fact."


They are neither 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or at preventing the spread of HIV (even when used perfectly, and no one legitimatly claims otherwise). Abstenence on the other hand is 100% effective at stoping both (providing you are not raped, which in some parts of africa is a big contributer to the spread of aids).

actually, abstinance doesn't work well at all in Africa, unless you are prepared to be celebate FOR LIFE, because of the huge percentage of the population that is infected with HIV long before marriagable age (i.e. all the babies born HIV positive, raped little girls who were used for the "virgin cure" etc). the Church isn't telling people that; they tell people you just have to wait until you are married, and then you are magically safe. there is actual footage of a Catholic nun informing an HIV-positive man that it would be wrong for him to use condoms with his wife because contraception is immoral. i guess knowingly passing on a deadly plague is a lesser sin than using a condom to protect your loved ones.


Additionally the Catholic Church and affiliated organizations are one of the leading providers of aid (aid not aids) in Africa through organizations such as Catholic Relief Services. Leftist organizations don't like the church promoting abstincence, so they attack them for there educating people that condoms don't always work (though they typically do).

"leftists" like the WHO, World AIDS Project, and other organizations have been pleading with the Vatican to stop their rampant and aggressive misinformation campaigns, which are actually INCREASING the spread of HIV across four continents. the Vatican has refused to admit to any of the proven medical data showing latex condoms to be so amazingly effective against HIV, and continue to publicly assert that condoms don't work, condoms are bad, even married people who have HIV shouldn't use condoms, etc etc etc.

actually, abstinance doesn't work well at all in Africa, unless you are prepared to be celebate FOR LIFE, because of the huge percentage of the population that is infected with HIV long before marriagable age (i.e. all the babies born HIV positive, raped little girls who were used for the "virgin cure" etc). the Church isn't telling people that; they tell people you just have to wait until you are married, and then you are magically safe. there is actual footage of a Catholic nun informing an HIV-positive man that it would be wrong for him to use condoms with his wife because contraception is immoral. i guess knowingly passing on a deadly plague is a lesser sin than using a condom to protect your loved ones.



Not to mention intercourse is not the only way to transmit many std's you can be abstinant compleatly and still get an std (abstinance does NOT cover fooling around ... just the act of intercourse)

Not to mention intercourse is not the only way to transmit many std's you can be abstinant compleatly and still get an std (abstinance does NOT cover fooling around ... just the act of intercourse)
the whole problem is that the Church is deliberately witholding or misrepresenting the facts, keeping the truth from other people because they don't want those people to make informed decisions. i find that disgusting. if the Church has any moral value at all, they would present the full and complete facts FIRST, THEN present their personal opinions about condoms, and let people choose for themselves. but instead the Church would rather lie and force people to cooperate through any means necessary.

i respect anyone's right to hold Catholic religious beliefs, but i have no respect whatsoever for any person who supports the Catholic Church. they are murderous cowards, and in a just world the senior Vatican staff (and the Pope) would be on trial for crimes against humanity.

I have that cicumcision is something that is wrong but people dont give it much thought. I personally am against it because I believe that people shouldnt have unnessisary surgery. Also 200 infants die every year in the United States alone from circumcision. I also think that parents dont have the right to do that to there child. If anything the man should choose if he wants his penis cut in half (which I doubt he would). What is your opinion?
I agree - I personally believe that circumcision is an antiquated custom, and is barbaric. It's a scientific fact the circumcision causes losss of sensitivity in the penis, leading to a loss of please during intercourse. As for the cleanliness argument, why stop with the foreskin - the are dozens of bodily are you could snip off to keep the body cleaner. Besides, it's reall NOT that hard to keep and uncircumcised penis clean.
I find it sad that nearly everyone can agree on the barbarity of female circumcision, yet people are gulled into believeing that male circumcision is "normal". Obviously female circumcision involves far greater mutilation, but it is still just a matter of degrees.
I am uncut, and thankful for it. Any boys I have will be similarly unmitilated.

the whole problem is that the Church is deliberately witholding or misrepresenting the facts, keeping the truth from other people because they don't want those people to make informed decisions. i find that disgusting. if the Church has any moral value at all, they would present the full and complete facts FIRST, THEN present their personal opinions about condoms, and let people choose for themselves. but instead the Church would rather lie and force people to cooperate through any means necessary.

i respect anyone's right to hold Catholic religious beliefs, but i have no respect whatsoever for any person who supports the Catholic Church. they are murderous cowards, and in a just world the senior Vatican staff (and the Pope) would be on trial for crimes against humanity.
Did you know that it was the current Pope who persuaded the then-Pope to condemn condoms? Everyone expected him to turn a blind eye.

I agree - I personally believe that circumcision is an antiquated custom, and is barbaric. It's a scientific fact the circumcision causes losss of sensitivity in the penis, leading to a loss of please during intercourse.

please provide sources. i've heard exactly the opposite, so i would like to compare notes on this one.


As for the cleanliness argument, why stop with the foreskin - the are dozens of bodily are you could snip off to keep the body cleaner.

because the foreskin serves no purpose, while other "snippable bits" do.


Besides, it's reall NOT that hard to keep and uncircumcised penis clean.
i wouldn't know :).


I find it sad that nearly everyone can agree on the barbarity of female circumcision, yet people are gulled into believeing that male circumcision is "normal". Obviously female circumcision involves far greater mutilation, but it is still just a matter of degrees.

if you think female "circumcision" is comparable to male circumcision, you are completely wrong. male circumcision involves removal of some loose skin; female "circumcision" involves cutting off the clitoris and often much of the labia. if male circumcision was actually parallel to female circumcision, the entire shaft of the penis and the soft skin surrounding the base of the penis would have to be cut off.


I am uncut, and thankful for it. Any boys I have will be similarly unmitilated.
do you think your personal "attachment" to your foreskin might be biasing you just a tad?

Who says the foreskin serves no purpose?
Your earlobes serve no purpose - can i cut them off?
Of course his attachment to his foreskin makes him think foreskins are important. It is a part of his body - it is de facto important. Circumcision is mutilation, that is a fact. It appears debatable whether that mutilation is acceptable in a civilised society. But mutilation it definitely is.

do you think your personal "attachment" to your foreskin might be biasing you just a tad?
Just a bit. ;)
Most circumcised guys don't consider themselves mutilated...

if you think female "circumcision" is comparable to male circumcision, you are completely wrong. male circumcision involves removal of some loose skin; female "circumcision" involves cutting off the clitoris and often much of the labia. if male circumcision was actually parallel to female circumcision, the entire shaft of the penis and the soft skin surrounding the base of the penis would have to be cut off.

They are entirely comparable in that both are genital mutilation. And where do you get off claiming that labia matter whereas a foreskin is *just loose skin*? I'm guessing you don't have a foreskin?

And no, I don't have any labia. But I've seen lots, and most of em were loose skin, and that loose skin was a part of the person whose skin it was just as my foreskin is a part of me. Removal of either is barbaric and unnecessary.

Just a bit. ;)
Most circumcised guys don't consider themselves mutilated...

In the 19th century most women didn't consider themselves oppressed. Education is important.

Who says the foreskin serves no purpose?

medical doctors.


Your earlobes serve no purpose - can i cut them off?
you cannot cut off my earlobes any more than i can cut off your foreskin. however, a parent can choose to have their infant's earlobes poked with needles and have metal posts shoved through them, so there's clearly no prohibition against "mutilation" of that body part.


Of course his attachment to his foreskin makes him think foreskins are important. It is a part of his body - it is de facto important. Circumcision is mutilation, that is a fact.
no, that is an opinion, just as it is an opinion than tattooing or piercing is "mutilation." some people say it is, others say it's not. i actually have two male friends who got circumcised at 18, because they were "uncut" and didn't like it. both reported being very happy with the result. clearly they did not feel mutilated, any more than i do from having my piercings or tattoo. you may feel it is mutilation, but others don't, and thus this is a subjective judgment...not a fact. try not to get confused on that point.

It appears debatable whether that mutilation is acceptable in a civilised society.

our society isn't debating if mutilation is acceptable, and you know it. what is being debated is whether circumcision qualifies as mutilation. don't get so emotional that you needlessly cloud the issue.

In the 19th century most women didn't consider themselves oppressed. Education is important.
Wow and I never thought I would see womens rights compared to the removal of forskin ... now I have seen almost everthing :p :D

Wow and I never thought I would see womens rights compared to the removal of forskin ... now I have seen almost everthing :p :D
Thats what I was thinking. :p

I had planed on posting more responses, but decided not to because some people who posted after me OBVIOUSLY have problems with the Catholic Church (not to say it is beyond reproach, every organization will have some problems) that no amount of talking would clear up.
That said I want to clear up a few things

1- I am involved with fighting aids, as I said Catholic organizations do alot.
2-Abstinence does cover fooling around (unless your an idiot and do it wrong)
3- Abstinence, when done properly, is effective (abstinence promotion fails for a variety of problems, but when people do choose abstinence it works)
4-I don't have a problem with the organizations and the work you talked about, for the most part. There are alot of good "liberal" organizations out there doing great work, I've worked with alot of them myself.
5-Just because a catholic does or teaches something doesn't mean you condemn the entire Church. There are misinformed and poorly trained "catholics" who teach things, just as with any other organization.
6-Additionally, for some time it was commonly thought that condoms did allow viruses through, and the church believed it and taught it because they felt it was true, it was not to lie. The Church doesn't claim any sort of infalability on the physics of condoms. They taught that condoms had problems to discourage sex, not to discourage condomn use.
6-The official position of the Catholic church is not avoid using condomns. It teaches that sex outside marriage and birth control are sins. If people took the whole postion, it wouldn't matter. Alot of morons have sex but don't use condoms (because its a sin). That's dumb, and not the catholic churchs fault any more than it is the fault of Islam that terrorists use selective teachings.
7-Yeah the Pope should be charged with crimes against humanity, and as I write this I am giving birth to 7 baby elephents.

Anyway go ahead and tare this to pieces, thought

I have to say I agree with Bottle for once, not just on one thing, but two!! The Catholic Church (I should specify the people at the very top, not the minions down below), and that FGM and circumcision are incomparable. I don't agree with either of them, but FGM is just too horrific to be put in the same class:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

necessary surgery not nessisary

I had planed on posting more responses, but decided not to because some people who posted after me OBVIOUSLY have problems with the Catholic Church (not to say it is beyond reproach, every organization will have some problems) that no amount of talking would clear up.
That said I want to clear up a few things

1- I am involved with fighting aids, as I said Catholic organizations do alot.
2-Abstinence does cover fooling around (unless your an idiot and do it wrong)
3- Abstinence, when done properly, is effective (abstinence promotion fails for a variety of problems, but when people do choose abstinence it works)
4-I don't have a problem with the organizations and the work you talked about, for the most part. There are alot of good "liberal" organizations out there doing great work, I've worked with alot of them myself.
5-Just because a catholic does or teaches something doesn't mean you condemn the entire Church. There are misinformed and poorly trained "catholics" who teach things, just as with any other organization.
6-Additionally, for some time it was commonly thought that condoms did allow viruses through, and the church believed it and taught it because they felt it was true, it was not to lie. The Church doesn't claim any sort of infalability on the physics of condoms. They taught that condoms had problems to discourage sex, not to discourage condomn use.
6-The official position of the Catholic church is not avoid using condomns. It teaches that sex outside marriage and birth control are sins. If people took the whole postion, it wouldn't matter. Alot of morons have sex but don't use condoms (because its a sin). That's dumb, and not the catholic churchs fault any more than it is the fault of Islam that terrorists use selective teachings.
7-Yeah the Pope should be charged with crimes against humanity, and as I write this I am giving birth to 7 baby elephents.

Anyway go ahead and tare this to pieces, thought


You must not be thinking about the true meaning of the word then on point two ... let me help you

Main Entry: ab·sti·nence
Pronunciation: 'ab-st&-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : voluntary forbearance especially from sexual intercourse or from eating some foods
2 : habitual abstaining from intoxicating beverages —ab·sti·nent /-n&nt/ adjective


Note the sexual intercourse part ;)

They are entirely comparable in that both are genital mutilation.

female "circumcision" is universally recognized as genital mutilation. male circumcision is not. you personally may feel they equate, but i would invite you to sit down and chat with a couple of my friends before you decide to stick to your guns...i know two men who were "mutilated" by choice as adults, and one woman who was mutilated, so you can hear their stories and decide if you really want to continue equating the two procedures.


And where do you get off claiming that labia matter whereas a foreskin is *just loose skin*?

i get that idea from medical doctors and ob/gyns. no offense, but i trust their medical opinion more than yours.


I'm guessing you don't have a foreskin?

i'm guessing you don't have labia, yet you seem to feel very confident in your assertions about labia. could it be that a person can be knowledgable about this subject without having to possess a penis?

at any rate, my uncut roommate also support circumcision, and has said he would rather be cut but is "too chicken" to get it done now. the simple fact is that not everybody with foreskin agrees with you, so don't waste our time with that line of argument.


And no, I don't have any labia. But I've seen lots, and most of em were loose skin, and that loose skin was a part of the person whose skin it was just as my foreskin is a part of me. Removal of either is barbaric and unnecessary.
the labia are far more medically necessary to keeping the genital region healthy and functional than is the foreskin. indeed, in many cases (like my little brother's) removal of the foreskin is NECESSARY for correct funtion, since there are a significant number of boys born with foreskin that completely covers the head of the penis (which would make several bodily functions problematic. labia are necessary both for the sanitation process down there and also for the correct production of lubricant, which prevents undue friction and tearing during intercourse.

I agree - I personally believe that circumcision is an antiquated custom, and is barbaric. It's a scientific fact the circumcision causes losss of sensitivity in the penis, leading to a loss of please during intercourse. As for the cleanliness argument, why stop with the foreskin - the are dozens of bodily are you could snip off to keep the body cleaner. Besides, it's reall NOT that hard to keep and uncircumcised penis clean.
I find it sad that nearly everyone can agree on the barbarity of female circumcision, yet people are gulled into believeing that male circumcision is "normal". Obviously female circumcision involves far greater mutilation, but it is still just a matter of degrees.
I am uncut, and thankful for it. Any boys I have will be similarly unmitilated.
I am surprised at the depth of feeling on this issue. I am "mutilated", and it doesn't seem that way to me. And you are ignoring the fact that it can be done for perfectly valid medical reasons.

medical doctors.And as everyone knows, "medical doctors" are always right. Spleens are unnecessary, so are appendixes. Most people could live quite happily with only one kidney, and I defy you to tell me that a clitoris is necessary. So necessity is clearly beside the point.
you cannot cut off my earlobes any more than i can cut off your foreskin. however, a parent can choose to have their infant's earlobes poked with needles and have metal posts shoved through them, so there's clearly no prohibition against "mutilation" of that body part.There's no prohibition against lots of things. That doesn't make them less barbaric. In my country, a parent can't choose to have their child tattooed. They can choose to have the child's ears pierced, but piercing hole generally can close over. This is by the by.
no, that is an opinion, just as it is an opinion than tattooing or piercing is "mutilation." some people say it is, others say it's not. i actually have two male friends who got circumcised at 18, because they were "uncut" and didn't like it. both reported being very happy with the result. clearly they did not feel mutilated, any more than i do from having my piercings or tattoo. you may feel it is mutilation, but others don't, and thus this is a subjective judgment...not a fact. try not to get confused on that point.
--
mu·ti·late Audio pronunciation of "mutilation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


[Latin mutilre, mutilt-, from mutilus, maimed.]muti·lation n.
muti·lative adj.
muti·lator n.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---
mu·ti·la·tion (mytl-shn)
n.

Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.

muti·late v.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
--------------

In fact, I am perhaps wrong about the meaning of the common american usage of the word "mutilate". There is a concept of disfigurement here which I wouldn't normally attribute to "mutilation". So we are discussing whether or not it circumcision is disfiguring.

our society isn't debating if mutilation is acceptable, and you know it. what is being debated is whether circumcision qualifies as mutilation. don't get so emotional that you needlessly cloud the issue.I don't understand what emotions have to do with it, or where the issue is clouded?

In the 19th century most women didn't consider themselves oppressed. Education is important.my cousin is in his third year of medical school, and he is cut. i have discussed circumcision with him recently (because his sister is expecting a male baby in about 2 months), and he believes it is wrong NOT to cut the foreskin. now, that's just his opinion, and i'm not saying he is automatically right or anything of the sort, but clearly education is not the problem in his case.

want to try another theory?

*clipped for length*

I don't understand what emotions have to do with it, or where the issue is clouded?
i'm sorry, but i think i should stop trying to discuss this issue with you. you've now started comparing removal of the foreskin to having majory surgery, removal of the clitoris, or even loss of a kidney. i think your feelings on this subject are far too strong for us to have anything approaching a useful conversation. i hope you will understand that i'm not trying to be rude to you, and i will be perfectly open to discussing other topics with you, but i simply don't think it is worth anybody's time to try to pursue this topic further with you.

have a good day, though!

I had planed on posting more responses, but decided not to because some people who posted after me OBVIOUSLY have problems with the Catholic Church (not to say it is beyond reproach, every organization will have some problems) that no amount of talking would clear up.
That said I want to clear up a few things

1- I am involved with fighting aids, as I said Catholic organizations do alot.
2-Abstinence does cover fooling around (unless your an idiot and do it wrong)
3- Abstinence, when done properly, is effective (abstinence promotion fails for a variety of problems, but when people do choose abstinence it works)
4-I don't have a problem with the organizations and the work you talked about, for the most part. There are alot of good "liberal" organizations out there doing great work, I've worked with alot of them myself.
5-Just because a catholic does or teaches something doesn't mean you condemn the entire Church. There are misinformed and poorly trained "catholics" who teach things, just as with any other organization.
6-Additionally, for some time it was commonly thought that condoms did allow viruses through, and the church believed it and taught it because they felt it was true, it was not to lie. The Church doesn't claim any sort of infalability on the physics of condoms. They taught that condoms had problems to discourage sex, not to discourage condomn use.
6-The official position of the Catholic church is not avoid using condomns. It teaches that sex outside marriage and birth control are sins. If people took the whole postion, it wouldn't matter. Alot of morons have sex but don't use condoms (because its a sin). That's dumb, and not the catholic churchs fault any more than it is the fault of Islam that terrorists use selective teachings.
7-Yeah the Pope should be charged with crimes against humanity, and as I write this I am giving birth to 7 baby elephents.

Anyway go ahead and tare this to pieces, thought
Oh go on, then.

Really, I don't have a problem with Christian charities - many of them a bloody marvellous. I have a problem with the heads of the Catholic Church, even more so because I was born a Catholic. Especially as senior Church figures are still publishing information that condoms have holes in. This is not just some error from the past that has lingered, and it is certainly not a couple of misinformed nuns.

Condoms are a form of artificial birth control, therefore the Catholic Church do teach against them, so I don't know why you're still insisting they don't.

I also have problem with the bit I've highlighted. People sleep around. That's a fact, whether you agree with their behaviour or not. People in developing countries do not fail to use condoms because it's a sin. Are the condoms available? If they are, are they affordable? If they are, where is the shop that sells them? Is it in full view of the rest of the village? Is the community open about sex, or is there stigma attached to it?

And finally, what other pleasures do they have? What else do they do when it goes dark? What other social pressures influence the fact that maybe they are a young girl, and they're not allowed to say no to sex, or they're not allowed to insist on using a condom?

They are not being dumb if they have sex without a condom; they do not have the knowledge, the life skills or the self-esteem to protect themselves.

female "circumcision" is universally recognized as genital mutilation. male circumcision is not. you personally may feel they equate, but i would invite you to sit down and chat with a couple of my friends before you decide to stick to your guns...i know two men who were "mutilated" by choice as adults, and one woman who was mutilated, so you can hear their stories and decide if you really want to continue equating the two procedures.Your argument is "lots of people think female circumcision is bad, and lots of people think male circumcision is good, so there". That's a crap argument.
i'm guessing you don't have labia, yet you seem to feel very confident in your assertions about labia. could it be that a person can be knowledgable about this subject without having to possess a penis?Whatever knowledge you have, you appear to use it only to value what you've got over what I've got. Of course it wouldn't affect you if my foreskin was removed.
at any rate, my uncut roommate also support circumcision, and has said he would rather be cut but is "too chicken" to get it done now. the simple fact is that not everybody with foreskin agrees with you, so don't waste our time with that line of argument.And there were black slave owners in the US. But that didn't make slavery ok. And not everyone with labia accepts that female circumcision is mutilation, but that doesn't make female circumcision ok.
the labia are far more medically necessary to keeping the genital region healthy and functional than is the foreskin.Well, your labia are far more necessary to you than my foreskin is to you, but I don't think that's much of an argument.
indeed, in many cases (like my little brother's) removal of the foreskin is NECESSARY for correct funtion, since there are a significant number of boys born with foreskin that completely covers the head of the penis (which would make several bodily functions problematic.Absolutely. And these people should get the treatment they need, which may be circumcision. And many people have kidney problems, but we don't remove one kidney from every baby born.
labia are necessary both for the sanitation process down there and also for the correct production of lubricant, which prevents undue friction and tearing during intercourse.And I would never ever advocate female circumcision. It is a wicked and barbaric practice. So is male circumcision.

i'm sorry, but i think i should stop trying to discuss this issue with you. you've now started comparing removal of the foreskin to having majory surgery, removal of the clitoris, or even loss of a kidney. i think your feelings on this subject are far too strong for us to have anything approaching a useful conversation. i hope you will understand that i'm not trying to be rude to you, and i will be perfectly open to discussing other topics with you, but i simply don't think it is worth anybody's time to try to pursue this topic further with you.

have a good day, though!

Yes, it is clearly not worth your while arguing your illogical position that some body parts are removable for no good reason.

You must not be thinking about the true meaning of the word then on point two ... let me help you


Note the sexual intercourse part ;)
Actually you can abstain from anything you like, therefore abstinence can mean pretty much anything you want it to - your definition is rather limited.

Yes, it is clearly not worth your while arguing your illogical position that some body parts are removable for no good reason.
a friendly tip: trying to get in a "last word" in this manner (by grossly and intentionally misrepresenting what was intended to be a polite closing post on my part) only provides more evidence for my belief that your emotions on this topic are getting the better of you. it might be best for you to take a little while to 'cool down,' and come back to this thread when you have chilled for a bit. just a thought.

a friendly tip: trying to get in a "last word" in this manner (by grossly and intentionally misrepresenting what was intended to be a polite closing post on my part) only provides more evidence for my belief that your emotions on this topic are getting the better of you. it might be best for you to take a little while to 'cool down,' and come back to this thread when you have chilled for a bit. just a thought.

a patronising tip: trying to get the last word by telling me that trying to get the last word is a bad thing is somewhat hypocritical. it might be best for you to look up "rank hypocrisy" in the dictionary and take a little time to meditate on the meaning of it, before coming back to the thread when you have a better understanding of why patronising people might make you feel cool, but it makes you look lame.

oh, grow up both of you. neither of you were willing the whole way through that that you basically agreed, just with slightly differing positions, bickering over petty little details.

Children, please!!

oh, grow up both of you. neither of you were willing the whole way through that that you basically agreed, just with slightly differing positions, bickering over petty little details.
i have freely admitted that some people feel that circumcision is mutilation. some people do not. i think i have made it clear where i agreed and disagreed, but i don't think the details we disagree on are "petty." would you mind explaining why you think so?

oh, grow up both of you. neither of you were willing the whole way through that that you basically agreed, just with slightly differing positions, bickering over petty little details.

she said that circumcision of male babies is ok. i say it's mutilation. that's hardly a slight difference.

anyway, she started it.

5-Just because a catholic does or teaches something doesn't mean you condemn the entire Church. There are misinformed and poorly trained "catholics" who teach things, just as with any other organization.

Blaming the entire organisation for the actions of the occasional misinformed employee is indeed a bit unfair. However, one *can* blame the organisation if it doesn't act to correct those mistakes. A priest that due to ignorance gives information that may lead to unnessary suffering and death should be retrained. A cardinal that makes ridiculous claims about condoms in name of the vatican should be removed from authority, and the Vatican should issue a clear statement that he was a bit potty. If the Church doesn't act, they condone the actions and can therefor be blamed.

6-Additionally, for some time it was commonly thought that condoms did allow viruses through, and the church believed it and taught it because they felt it was true, it was not to lie.

50 years ago, maybe. But not in 2004 - at least not in western countries. Nor did the sources Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo cited support his claims.

6-The official position of the Catholic church is not avoid using condomns. It teaches that sex outside marriage and birth control are sins.
If people took the whole postion, it wouldn't matter. Alot of morons have sex but don't use condoms (because its a sin). That's dumb, and not the catholic churchs fault any more than it is the fault of Islam that terrorists use selective teachings.

And people that have a STD, but not because they sinned ? Due to a bloodtransfusion, a dentist who did not clean his gear properly, a junkie attacking you with a syringe, being raped, being born out of a mother who has it and has passed it on ? Are they not allowed to use condoms within marriage ?

anyway, she started it.
lol, ok, this time i have to say it:

"Children, please! Don't make me pull this car over!"

a patronising tip: trying to get the last word by telling me that trying to get the last word is a bad thing is somewhat hypocritical. it might be best for you to look up "rank hypocrisy" in the dictionary and take a little time to meditate on the meaning of it, before coming back to the thread when you have a better understanding of why patronising people might make you feel cool, but it makes you look lame.
i'm sorry if you felt i was being patronizing. i honestly think you have good intentions, but you seem to be so upset that it's not really possible to have a discussion with you. i understand why you might be upset about it, which is why i have tried not to be rude in return, and i know that when i get too emotional about a topic it can help for me to take a break and come back when i am not so het up about it. if you felt i was out of line for suggesting you try that method, i'm sorry.

i have freely admitted that some people feel that circumcision is mutilation. some people do not. i think i have made it clear where i agreed and disagreed, but i don't think the details we disagree on are "petty." would you mind explaining why you think so?
Er - I think that's just the point- some people consider it mutilation some do not, so surely inflicting it on a baby, who is not able to tell you whether he thinks it is mutilation or not is somewhat morally hazy. By all means get circumcised later on when you acn make that decision on yourself, but it shouldn't be a case that these operations are carried out merely because that is waht the doctor is used to doing.

i'm sorry if you felt i was being patronizing. i honestly think you have good intentions, but you seem to be so upset that it's not really possible to have a discussion with you. i understand why you might be upset about it, which is why i have tried not to be rude in return, and i know that when i get too emotional about a topic it can help for me to take a break and come back when i am not so het up about it. if you felt i was out of line for suggesting you try that method, i'm sorry.

apology accepted. you did it in a really patronising way. and it upsets me to see my flesh devalued by a bad argument. but not so much that i can't argue back.

Er - I think that's just the point- some people consider it mutilation some do not, so surely inflicting it on a baby, who is not able to tell you whether he thinks it is mutilation or not is somewhat morally hazy. By all means get circumcised later on when you acn make that decision on yourself, but it shouldn't be a case that these operations are carried out merely because that is waht the doctor is used to doing.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

i certainly agree that the doctor's habits are not sufficient grounds for circumcision, but i do feel that decision belongs to the parents. if it does not, the question becomes: why shouldn't parents be the one to make such choices? parents are free to make far more important medical decisions for their children, so why should the removal of foreskin be restricted while parents are allowed to decide on issues like blood transfusion?

personally, i think it is horrid that some parents feed their toddlers McDonalds. the lasting health effects from frequent fast food consumption can be very serious. i totally disagree with parents who choose to fill their babies up with french fries...but do i have the right to forbid them that choice? what if the babies will grow up to be chronically obese as a result of poor diet in their youth? where do we draw the line, and tell parents that they may NOT make certain choices for their children? and if the parents aren't allowed to choose, who is better qualified?

Bull. Wether you´re cut ot not doesn´t matter. I´m NOT cut and I have quite some experience with VERY long marches. You can get a "wolf" (that´s how we called it), but wether you´re cut or not doesn´t change a dime about it.

Ever march in Iraq? It's sandy there. Crotches attract sand.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

i certainly agree that the doctor's habits are not sufficient grounds for circumcision, but i do feel that decision belongs to the parents. if it does not, the question becomes: why shouldn't parents be the one to make such choices? parents are free to make far more important medical decisions for their children, so why should the removal of foreskin be restricted while parents are allowed to decide on issues like blood transfusion?


because blood transfusion doesnt leave lasting damage per chance?

Ever march in Iraq? It's sandy there. Crotches attract sand.
as a girl, i've got to say that having ANY penis sounds extremely uncomfortable to me...the sweating, the chafing, the potential for hideous zipper mishaps...don't get me wrong, i'm really glad fellows are willing to carry those things about, but i'm just as glad that i don't have to tote one myself. ;)

I would just like to take a moment and thank Bottle for her patience... despite enduring two pointlessly vicious posts, she is still trying to be reasonable, which is more than I could say for myself in such a position.

Now: I'm not a mod (standard disclaimer):
For Independent Homesteads,

Please consider that many people believe the procedure in question is medically beneficial, and your crusade against it will probably not bring any societal change about, although we respect your strong opinion. But please refrain from pointlessly attacking people who disagree with you.

Ok, I'm done.

Please show me an attack. Well, I said she was patronising, and indeed she was. But other than that?

because blood transfusion doesnt leave lasting damage per chance?
a blood transfusion is far more likely to have lasting medical implications than a circumcision. circumcision is, according to the medical community, almost entirely a cosmetic issue. if you accept the word of the medical community in general (which you don't necessarily have to do), a blood transfusion is a far more serious issue than foreskin removal.

but what i was really getting at is this: a parent can currently choose NOT to allow their child to receive a transfusion that is necessary to save the child's life...if we will allow a parent to make that sort of life-or-death decision, how do we explain denying them the right to circumcise their child? parents can choose to allow their minor child to have plastic surgery, a situation in which the child (by definition) cannot give legal consent, so it's hard to find a legal or ethical distinction for foreskin removal...i mean, having boob implants put in is a lot more medically risky than taking off the foreskin, but parents are allowed to make that decision.

so why should the removal of foreskin be restricted while parents are allowed to decide on issues like blood transfusion?
Babies aren't given a blood transfusion for no reason. Healthy foreskins are cut off.

as a girl, i've got to say that having ANY penis sounds extremely uncomfortable to me...the sweating, the chafing, the potential for hideous zipper mishaps...don't get me wrong, i'm really glad fellows are willing to carry those things about, but i'm just as glad that i don't have to tote one myself. ;)

There are advantages to not having things external.

Women soldiers seem to have more problems with breasts and nipples than men. Especially when they run long distances. Without the right bra it's chafing upstairs. Sometimes, even if you have the right bra, it's still hot and sandy, and...

but what i was really getting at is this: a parent can currently choose NOT to allow their child to receive a transfusion that is necessary to save the child's life...if we will allow a parent to make that sort of life-or-death decision, how do we explain denying them the right to circumcise their child?

I didn't know that was what you were getting at. I think it is because the right of denial, the right to say "refrain" is easier to give than the right to say "do".

Er, not very clear that was it? Because both circumcision and blood transfusion are interventions, and the right to deny intervention is the right to leave things as they are, or as they would be if there was no medical science.

There are advantages to not having things external.

Women soldiers seem to have more problems with breasts and nipples than men. Especially when they run long distances. Without the right bra it's chafing upstairs. Sometimes, even if you have the right bra, it's still hot and sandy, and...

don't they put pasties on their nips?

a blood transfusion is far more likely to have lasting medical implications than a circumcision. circumcision is, according to the medical community, almost entirely a cosmetic issue. if you accept the word of the medical community in general (which you don't necessarily have to do), a blood transfusion is a far more serious issue than foreskin removal.

but what i was really getting at is this: a parent can currently choose NOT to allow their child to receive a transfusion that is necessary to save the child's life...if we will allow a parent to make that sort of life-or-death decision, how do we explain denying them the right to circumcise their child?

Because nowadays a circumcision is entirely cosmetic like you said. And taking into account the strong negative views on the subject raised by some people in this tread surely it would be better not to do it at all for risk of someone hating it for the rest of their life.

Here's another analogy: you wouldnt let a parent tattoo their baby would you? Both procedures force a cosmetic change on an infant who may grow up to resent it.