NationStates Jolt Archive

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...
hmm, that's a good point. boobage bouncing can get painful without sufficient support.

fair enough, we'll all tote our uncomfortable bits for the good of the whole!

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?

Its a religious thing for Jewish People and I am pretty sure that at the end the kid will be happy with his circumsized penis. When it's uncircumsided it looks like a combination of Dick Cheney and an army helmet.

Plus:

If they are not circumsized at birth they sure as hell won't do it when their older.

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.

parents are permitted to make much more serious cosmetic decisions for their children. a parent can decide to get their kid a cosmetic nose job, for instance. the rate of breast implant surgeries performed on minors has gone up something like 500% since the year 2000. since a minor is not able to legally consent to medical treatment, the child's "agreement" to the surgery is not valid, and it amounts to a parent making a serious cosmetic medical decision for their child.

personally i think it is unwise (and a bit warped), but i also believe that the parent is responsible for making such medical decisions.

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.
i would let a parent tattoo their baby, because i don't believe i have the authority to stop them. i think it is unwise, but parents make lots of decisions that i think are unwise. parents make lots of choices their children grow up to resent, after all, and we don't block most of those choices.

If they are not circumsized at birth they sure as hell won't do it when their older.
as i have already shared, i have two male friends who got circumcised by choice at 18 years old (as soon as legally able to make that choice).

Plus:

If they are not circumsized at birth they sure as hell won't do it when their older.
And if they don't that's their decision. How can their not doing it when they're older be in any way seen as a justification for circumcising them when they can't make the decision?

parents are permitted to make much more serious cosmetic decisions for their children. a parent can decide to get their kid a cosmetic nose job, for instance. the rate of breast implant surgeries performed on minors has gone up something like 500% since the year 2000. since a minor is not able to legally consent to medical treatment, the child's "agreement" to the surgery is not valid, and it amounts to a parent making a serious cosmetic medical decision for their child.

personally i think it is unwise (and a bit warped), but i also believe that the parent is responsible for making such medical decisions.


Well thats still not the same. These cases are still done with the children's consent, even if they are below 18.


i would let a parent tattoo their baby, because i don't believe i have the authority to stop them. i think it is unwise, but parents make lots of decisions that i think are unwise. parents make lots of choices their children grow up to resent, after all, and we don't block most of those choices.

Well i guess it just comes down to a difference of opinion on whether parents should be able to do that kind of thing. I dont think minors should be able to have any cosmetic surgery, especially without their consent.

i would let a parent tattoo their baby, because i don't believe i have the authority to stop them. i think it is unwise, but parents make lots of decisions that i think are unwise. parents make lots of choices their children grow up to resent, after all, and we don't block most of those choices.
But you could prevent a parent from for example beating their child or a million other things. That seems a bit of an extreme example, but the point is that you can draw the line whereever you want. If you can stop a parent beating their child then, if you have good reason to think it could cause harm/distress, you can justify stopping circumcision or tatooing.

I am pretty sure that at the end the kid will be happy with his circumsized penis.

Not true. I am circumcised and I hate it. I fell that I am a hypocrit to what I believe in and that I am not a true man. Normaly I dont tell anybody this kind of stuff but no one here knows who I am anyway but I even plan on getting reconstructed. The parent should have no right to do that to there child. It is a hell of a lot easier to multilate the penis than it is to fix it.

Gosh, you have some personality problem, but why do you think you would be better off with a bit more skin? I've been cut as i was seven, for medical reasons and never missed it since. Get over it.

Gosh, you have some personality problem, but why do you think you would be better off with a bit more skin? I've been cut as i was seven, for medical reasons and never missed it since. Get over it.
Dude, there's something you might want to consider - it's called tact. It involves not telling people who feel differently from you that they have personality problems and that they should 'get over it'. You might not miss it but it is clear that others do. That is why unconsenting circumcision is extremely dubious.

Not true. I am circumcised and I hate it. I fell that I am a hypocrit to what I believe in and that I am not a true man. Normaly I dont tell anybody this kind of stuff but no one here knows who I am anyway but I even plan on getting reconstructed. The parent should have no right to do that to there child. It is a hell of a lot easier to multilate the penis than it is to fix it.

Sadly, it is impossible to fix it completely. You can replace the skin, but you won't be able to regain much of the sensitivity. All those nerves will still be cut off, and they can't be replaced.

Dude, there's something you might want to consider - it's called tact. It involves not telling people who feel differently from you that they have personality problems and that they should 'get over it'. You might not miss it but it is clear that others do. That is why unconsenting circumcision is extremely dubious.
If someone tells me about procedure A being unneccesary surgery and risky and considers procedure B, which is solely cosmetic and even less tried and true than procedure A i feel the person isnt honest at least and a bit off the scale at worst. And pray tell me how someone who was circumsised as a baby could ever miss his foreskin, he never knew the feeling of having one.

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?

Since some people feel circumcision to be mutilation, it is best if the person who's body it concerns makes the choice. As an infant, it is impossible to make that choice.

If in adult life the person wishes to stave off crotch-rot or "look nicer" or reap whatever supposed benefits of circumcision exist, they are free to choose to. An adult can make an informed decision regarding their own body.

I was circumsized as an infant and I'm quite glad that I was.

13 pages, and no one's mentioned female genital mutilation...
FGM isn't even analogous to male circumcision. The male analogy to male circumcision would be like killing all the nerve endings in the penis and sewing it to the abdomen with stitches to be torn out when in the marriage bed.

There is female circumcision that is quite analogous to male circumcision that is practised in some parts of south east asia where consenting adult women get their clitoral hoods removed, or more usually, snipped a little.

And for the record, most men in the world aren't circumcised. I think the onyl countries where circumcision is more common than being uncut are countries that are predominantly muslum, israel and the united states.

And as a woman, I prefer foreskin on a guy. It looks weirder without it.

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.

But cutting off your forskin wouldn't affect your hearing, haha.