NationStates Jolt Archive

Especially among those who do not do it for religious reasons. Why is this practice still around, and will any of you, as parents, perpetuate it?

It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.

Do you mean circumcision?

I always thought this was more about hygiene than mutilation.

*whimpers* :(

It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.
Source! As well, is this healthier factor something that can not be arrived at with proper hygiene? Should we cut off our fingers so they don't get dirty too?
Do you mean circumcision?

Yes. That is the mutilation I'm referring to.

It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.

Good fucking god, no it's not, not in any way that a little extra washing won't help

I am very happy to say that I was not circumsized, and in the event I ever have male children they will not be circumsized either.

I always thought this was more about hygiene than mutilation.

And were you to become a mother, would you continue to think it was more about this or that, or would you actually look into it before making a choice?

*whimpers* :(

Shall I assume then that the little boy goofballs did not have parts of their penii snipped off?

This study suggest circumcision makes sex better
http://ezinearticles.com/?Circumcision---The-Case-for-Having-It-Done&id=339209

Good fucking god, no it's not, not in any way that a little extra washing won't help
It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean. There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.

And were you to become a mother, would you continue to think it was more about this or that, or would you actually look into it before making a choice?

I would look more into it. Aside from the religious aspect of it in Judaism, circumsition hasn't been proven to do anything, really, for the penis other than maybe help with hygiene.

It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean. There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.

I'd like to see a source on that AIDS bit.

As for the hygiene, I've never had a problem keeping my penis clean.

Shall I assume then that the little boy goofballs did not have parts of their penii snipped off?

It was an agonizing decision and many factors such as tradition, conformity and health were considered. In the end, I have never been one for either tradition or conformity and health concerns are far from conclusive. I see no reason to engage in an inconclusive action for the sake of values I don't share. My wife agreed. So no, no snip-snips.

My mother was kind of upset with that decision, but she got over it. *nod*

Edit: Besides, it's a lot easier to remove in the future than to put it back on. :p

It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean. There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.

Yeah, men wearing condoms over their uncircumcised penii tend to be less likely to get teh AIDS too.

It seems pretty flimsy. I mean, I understand, to a certain extent, cultural and religious reasons (which aren't based so much on reason)...what I don't understand is the secular, very thin justification.

And am I right in recalling that you didn't get the snip?

There is -occasionally- a medical reason for it. the foreskin can be too tight which causes immense pain. I remember this. I was circumcised because of it. Otherwise, it seems absolutely pointless to me, and it has occasionally gone badly wrong. I can't reason why anybody would have started doing it for any reason other than genuine medical reasons. I can't imagine the chain of thought that lead to 'and then we chop off their foreskin for the lord!'

I'd like to see a source on that AIDS bit.

As for the hygiene, I've never had a problem keeping my penis clean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/

Yes. That is the mutilation I'm referring to.

Well I have no idea, I read somewhere that it is on the increase over here because of hygiene reasons but I think that is just because parents are either getting to slack to teach their sons how to keep clean down there and cutting the foreskin off will do the job.

I'll probably look into it again before I have kids just to see if anything has changed, but I've found the argument that it is healthier pretty unconvincing. From what I can tell, you can get all the "benefits" of a circumcision by engaging in proper hygiene and safe sex. So, despite the fact that it will probably cause some sort of crazy uproar in my family, I probably won't go with circumcision if I ever have a little boy.

There is -occasionally- a medical reason for it. the foreskin can be too tight which causes immense pain. I remember this. I was circumcised because of it. Otherwise, it seems absolutely pointless to me, and it has occasionally gone badly wrong. I can't reason why anybody would have started doing it for any reason other than genuine medical reasons. I can't imagine the chain of thought that lead to 'and then we chop off their foreskin for the lord!'

You'd be surprised.

But yes, there used to be some serious hygiene considerations before the advent of modern hygiene capabilities.

In today's world its really no longer necessary

Greed and Death: Interesting. I note they say at the end that previous studies have linked circumcision with increased infection rather than decreased. I also note this concerns itself primarily with Africa, where contraceptive methods such as condoms are far less available.

That said, still rather interesting. Would be nice if we could get a bit more info than an MSNBC article though.

I will do it for religious reasons. I wouldn't presume to know His chain of thought in deciding to command circumcision.

I wouldn't permanently modify my children's bodies unless there was a pressing medical need without their consent.

I do have a friend who got circumcised as an adult, he said it wasn't that bad. Seems like a choice for a grown up to make for themselves.

It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean. There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.

Those reports only hold up in third-world countries. When they try to repeat them in first-world countries, they don't see any significant difference. Apparently, prevalence of safe sex and proper hygiene completely overshadows any difference from circumcised vs. uncircumcised.

I'd like to see a source on that AIDS bit.

As for the hygiene, I've never had a problem keeping my penis clean.
G'n'D has one further up. Good as any.
Sides, it is still healthier if you reduce the amount of maintenance necessary. Not drastically so, nor am I saying it justifies a circumcision.
Yeah, men wearing condoms over their uncircumcised penii tend to be less likely to get teh AIDS too.

It seems pretty flimsy. I mean, I understand, to a certain extent, cultural and religious reasons (which aren't based so much on reason)...what I don't understand is the secular, very thin justification.

And am I right in recalling that you didn't get the snip?Aye.

The cocks should be Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

Such is the word of the Prophets.

Edit: Besides, it's a lot easier to remove in the future than to put it back on. :p Good point.

It was automatic here for years...now that you have to pay for it, more parents are opting out. It just amazes me that this was a practice people took for granted, when the majority of people doing it in Canada were not Jews or Muslims, but WASPs. Some vague idea that it could be healthier doesn't really explain the offhanded way foreskins were being removed en masse. Makes you wonder what they were doing with all those tiny little foreskins...

*pictures a foreskin quilt and shudders*

There is -occasionally- a medical reason for it. Sure, and that of course makes all the sense in the world! In fact, so would elective circumcision later on in life...who am I to care what some dude does with his own penis?


I can't imagine the chain of thought that lead to 'and then we chop off their foreskin for the lord!'
This is an asbolutely lovely quote :D


Well I have no idea, I read somewhere that it is on the increase over here because of hygiene reasons but I think that is just because parents are either getting to slack to teach their sons how to keep clean down there and cutting the foreskin off will do the job.

It's on the increase? Really? I'd have assumed the opposite, how odd...do you have any stats? Not a huge deal if not, but it's interesting.

Some vague idea that it could be healthier doesn't really explain the offhanded way foreskins were being removed en masse. Makes you wonder what they were doing with all those tiny little foreskins...
The traditional ZOG practice is to dry them up and store in glass jars. I don't know what do they do with them later, but perhaps something. They're known to be good as a spice, FWIW.

Makes you wonder what they were doing with all those tiny little foreskins...

Selling them to researchers for fibroblasts.

*nodnod*

The traditional ZOG practice is to dry them up and store in glass jars. I don't know what do they do with them later, but perhaps something. They're known to be good as a spice, FWIW.

That's... interesting.

Source! As well, is this healthier factor something that can not be arrived at with proper hygiene? Should we cut off our fingers so they don't get dirty too?

QFT. its really not hard to keep it all clean round there. quite glad i'm not snipped, personally. but then in this country its not really done much anyway *shrugs*

It's on the increase? Really? I'd have assumed the opposite, how odd...do you have any stats? Not a huge deal if not, but it's interesting.

I will have a look for you, it was a few years ago I read it and it may have only been a doctor saying he was now performing more circumcisions than in previous years.

There was also one or two other articles about it as well as an opinion coloum asking parents to do it with reasons why. If I find them I will post them as I say it was a few years ago.

I wonder why the hell it's so popular to get the snip in the US and Canada, compared to western europe?

Also, my two cents as someone on the receiving end of snipped and non snipped...I quite like the non-snipped...you can do more interesting things to it with your tongue. Both are good though, never fear.

Especially among those who do not do it for religious reasons. Why is this practice still around, and will any of you, as parents, perpetuate it?
Hell no!
Circumcision isn't a wide-spread practice in Germany to begin with, and I'm glad I'm not mutilated, so there's very little if nothing that could convince me of that barbaric practice.
It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.
BS. Water and soap do the job of keeping my dick clean well enough, even if I have to move the foreskin.
I always thought this was more about hygiene than mutilation.
Right, and circumsized guys take that as an excuse not to wash the nether regions?!?
*whimpers* :(
*cringes*
As well, is this healthier factor something that can not be arrived at with proper hygiene?
No.
Should we cut off our fingers so they don't get dirty too?
That would be the logical conclusion, wouldn't it?
Good fucking god, no it's not, not in any way that a little extra washing won't help

I am very happy to say that I was not circumsized, and in the event I ever have male children they will not be circumsized either.
This!!!
Shall I assume then that the little boy goofballs did not have parts of their penii snipped off?
I take it - from what I know of LG - that they will need every little bit of skin to lessen the impact of belonging to the goofball family line.
It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean.
Even if in younger boys the foreskin might be a little tighter, there's nothing that a little exercise cannot achieve to remedy the situation and grant easy access to regions that need to be cleaned.
There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.
While that may very well be true due to the scar tissue - the easy solution is, as always, to protect oneself. Be it cut or uncut, condoms do work just fine!

there is also the cervical cancer risk reduction.
Women who are married to men that have had over 6 partners in a lifetime have a significantly lower risk of cervical cancer.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020701/tips/8.html

It is very easy to understand. As you know, circumcision somewhat protects against various STDs, like e.g. AIDS. As such, circumcision of babies makes it less likely that your baby gets AIDS when you molest it.

Parents that disagree with this are asked to explain why it could not wait until little toddler entered puberty and would able to have a small say in the matter himself.

Much like Helen Keller playing baseball, abrahamic religions fail the VAST majority of the time. Circumcision, however, is the rare occasion where they manage to get something right.

Much like Helen Keller playing baseball, abrahamic religions fail the VAST majority of the time. Circumcision, however, is the rare occasion where they manage to get something right.

Care to explain that odd statement?

have a son.

didnt do it.

didnt even think about it.

Much like Helen Keller playing baseball, abrahamic religions fail the VAST majority of the time. Circumcision, however, is the rare occasion where they manage to get something right.

You do realize helen keller lead the blind league in ERA for 3 years?

And two of her records in that league are still unbroken.

have a son.

didnt do it.

didnt even think about it.

That's interesting, because I'm assuming this was a number of years ago, yes? Wasn't it fairly common then? Did anyone question you about it? Was it a practice your family considered normal? I don't know many people from your generation that didn't have their boys circumcised, so I find it really fascinating.

Care to explain that odd statement?

Keep in mind that these number are estimates...

Batting average of Helen Keller: .002, give or take
Batting average of abrahamic religions: .002, give or take

But that means that Helen Keller bunts successfully in rare occasions, and that abrahamic religions are accurate in rare occasions. Supporting circumcision being a good thing is one of the rare occasions where religion is correct.

Keep in mind that these number are estimates...

Batting average of Helen Keller: .002, give or take
Batting average of abrahamic religions: .002, give or take

But that means that Helen Keller bunts successfully in rare occasions, and that abrahamic religions are accurate in rare occasions. Supporting circumcision being a good thing is one of the rare occasions where religion is correct.

In the blind league her average was a .324

In the blind league her average was a .324

Well, I was referring to her playing in standard (nonblind) baseball...

What nonsense. "Male Genital Mutilation" is a bullshit term used to make circumcision seem as bad as Female Genital Mutilation, a comparison which only has the result of dismissing and denying the horror of FGM.

I'm circumcised, I am not at all unhappy with it, I don't consider myself "mutilated" and I am certainly not in the position of having been brutalized with a barbaric procedure conducted in unhygienic conditions for the sole purpose of repressing my sexuality and ensuring I'll grow up to be a good little rape victim who won't enjoy it too much.

But by using "MGM" you suggest, if not outright scream at the top of your lungs, that I am. It's a brilliant propaganda tool and a great way to say "FGM isn't all that bad at all!" in less words. Great job. But I'm not mutilated, I'm not a victim, and people who are wiping their foreheads saying "Whew! I'm glad I wasn't MUTILATED! How horrible my life would be!" are fucking idiots.

You don't like circumcisions? Then don't get one. It's that simple. You don't have to take a big fat shit over everyone who does or who doesn't agree with your simplistic "MUTILATION!" interpretation.

Well, I was referring to her playing in standard (nonblind) baseball...

that is unfair.

But that means that Helen Keller bunts successfully in rare occasions, and that abrahamic religions are accurate in rare occasions. Supporting circumcision being a good thing is one of the rare occasions where religion is correct.

Supporting circumcision - perhaps.
But supporting circumcision of babies ? Why is it so horrible to let the man make that decision for himself when he is ready to poke the thing in other peoples thingies ?

You don't like circumcisions? Then don't get one. It's that simple. You don't have to take a big fat shit over everyone who does or who doesn't agree with your simplistic "MUTILATION!" interpretation.

It is hard to say "I do not want to be circumcized" when you are a baby.

I am guessing if you believe in intelligent design it would be wrong to chop bits off...

Supporting circumcision being a good thing is one of the rare occasions where religion is correct.

*sigh*
THIS is what I was referring to, don't give a shit about your analogy.

Why do you think supporting circumcision is a good thing?

I will do it for religious reasons. I wouldn't presume to know His chain of thought in deciding to command circumcision.
You do know, I presume, that it was originally something used for medical purposes and was then preserved in tradition much like a lot of such things, right?

that is unfair.

Whiuch, ironically, fits in with religion as well! XD

What nonsense. "Male Genital Mutilation" is a bullshit term used to make circumcision seem as bad as Female Genital Mutilation, a comparison which only has the result of dismissing and denying the horror of FGM.

I'm circumcised, I am not at all unhappy with it, I don't consider myself "mutilated" and I am certainly not in the position of having been brutalized with a barbaric procedure conducted in unhygienic conditions for the sole purpose of repressing my sexuality and ensuring I'll grow up to be a good little rape victim who won't enjoy it too much.

But by using "MGM" you suggest, if not outright scream at the top of your lungs, that I am. It's a brilliant propaganda tool and a great way to say "FGM isn't all that bad at all!" in less words. Great job. But I'm not mutilated, I'm not a victim, and people who are wiping their foreheads saying "Whew! I'm glad I wasn't MUTILATED! How horrible my life would be!" are fucking idiots.

You don't like circumcisions? Then don't get one. It's that simple. You don't have to take a big fat shit over everyone who does or who doesn't agree with your simplistic "MUTILATION!" interpretation.
Woah, calm down there honky. First off, you're ranting to a woman about this. Second off, Sin is very well aware of how horrible female genital mutilation is and is not attempting to make light of it.

*sigh*
THIS is what I was referring to, don't give a shit about your analogy.

Why do you think supporting circumcision is a good thing?

It's good for your health -- that's the sole reason why I was circumcised as an infant.

What nonsense. "Male Genital Mutilation" is a bullshit term used to make circumcision seem as bad as Female Genital Mutilation, a comparison which only has the result of dismissing and denying the horror of FGM.

I'm circumcised, I am not at all unhappy with it, I don't consider myself "mutilated" and I am certainly not in the position of having been brutalized with a barbaric procedure conducted in unhygienic conditions for the sole purpose of repressing my sexuality and ensuring I'll grow up to be a good little rape victim who won't enjoy it too much.

But by using "MGM" you suggest, if not outright scream at the top of your lungs, that I am. It's a brilliant propaganda tool and a great way to say "FGM isn't all that bad at all!" in less words. Great job. But I'm not mutilated, I'm not a victim, and people who are wiping their foreheads saying "Whew! I'm glad I wasn't MUTILATED! How horrible my life would be!" are fucking idiots.

You don't like circumcisions? Then don't get one. It's that simple. You don't have to take a big fat shit over everyone who does or who doesn't agree with your simplistic "MUTILATION!" interpretation.

Lol, you're funny, scream some more! I like how the vein throbs in your forehead, mutilated boy.

That's interesting, because I'm assuming this was a number of years ago, yes? Wasn't it fairly common then? Did anyone question you about it? Was it a practice your family considered normal? I don't know many people from your generation that didn't have their boys circumcised, so I find it really fascinating.
Here's something I wonder about: If it was common practice to circumsize boys right after birth - did those performing the act even ask the parents before they went ahead?
Because I'd freak out if someone took a knife to my new-born son without my consent, common practice be damned!
You don't like circumcisions? Then don't get one. It's that simple.
Right - because as a baby, you have the option to opt out?[/QUOTE]
I am guessing if you believe in intelligent design it would be wrong to chop bits off...
Improving on His design one dick at a time?

I was expecting something more 'out there' than circumcision from this thread. I suppose once your mind is made dirty it will never,ever, ever be clean again.....

Woah, calm down there honky. First off, you're ranting to a woman about this. Second off, Sin is very well aware of how horrible female genital mutilation is and is not attempting to make light of it.
I totally was making light of FGM actually.

I'm bad like that.
It's good for your health -- that's the sole reason why I was circumcised as an infant.

And yet the health benefits are not really something that cannot be outweighed by washing your pecker well and using a jimmy hat...would you have your sons circumcised for such a flimsy reason? Or would you just want them to look like you down there?

It's good for your health -- that's the sole reason why I was circumcised as an infant.

How is that?

Woah, calm down there honky. First off, you're ranting to a woman about this. Second off, Sin is very well aware of how horrible female genital mutilation is and is not attempting to make light of it.

I know Sin is a woman. But the use of the term here speaks for itself. It is like the tendency to classify everything as terrorism to make it sound more spooky. "Circumcision" no one cares about, but BABIES BEING MUTILATED? Someone, think of the babies!

Right - because as a baby, you have the option to opt out?

What does this have to do with anything? As a baby, you don't have choices and your parents make decisions on your behalf.

I didn't know this was such a horrible and unheard of thing. Apparently where you come from babies have the right to vote and drive cars and shit.

I know Sin is a woman. But the use of the term here speaks for itself. It is like the tendency to classify everything as terrorism to make it sound more spooky. "Circumcision" no one cares about, but BABIES BEING MUTILATED? Someone, think of the babies!

Thing is, while it's not anywhere near as bad as FGM, circumcision IS rather pointless and should be addressed. It's still forcing a permanent change onto the child, a change that they ought to decide for themselves if they want it or not.

Here's something I wonder about: If it was common practice to circumsize boys right after birth - did those performing the act even ask the parents before they went ahead?
Because I'd freak out if someone took a knife to my new-born son without my consent, common practice be damned!

I've asked my mom about it, because she had my brothers circumcised. She said that it was done automatically, they didn't ask, they just assumed she would want it done. She didn't question it because it was considered 'housekeeping' of sorts, just something you do after a boy is born.

As I said now, there is a charge for it, so they ask. Maybe only poor boys will be uncut now :P

Thing is, while it's not anywhere near as bad as FGM, circumcision IS rather pointless and should be addressed.

I think comparing it to Female Genital Mutilation is also rather pointless and should be addressed. It serves no more purpose than when the anti-abortion crowd informs me that abortion is murder and that there's a baby Holocaust perpetuated by baby-murdering Nazis.

There are points to make on the issue but calling it MGM is the equivalent of saying "Explain baby murder to me" as an opening to a discussing on abortion.

It's still forcing a permanent change onto the child, a change that they ought to decide for themselves if they want it or not.

Why do you think they 'ought to decide for themselves?' What about this decision is different from any of the other permanent changes parents can make for their children?

In short, why is it so bloody horrible that you are "very happy" to be uncircumcised? Do you think I must be very unhappy to be circumcised?

I know Sin is a woman. But the use of the term here speaks for itself. It is like the tendency to classify everything as terrorism to make it sound more spooky. "Circumcision" no one cares about, but BABIES BEING MUTILATED? Someone, think of the babies!

FGM is called female circumcision by its supporters, because 'mutilation' is a loaded word, right?

Calling circumcision 'male mutilation' is shocking, and loaded, true? Yet if you come from a culture where the non-consensual surgical alteration of childrens' genitals is NOT common place, it can seem pretty barbaric, even if done in hygenic circumstances by medical professionals. The point is not to belittle FGM, which is a horrific practice even when done in hygenic circumstances. The point is to shake up people who take this sort of practice for granted, and perhaps cause them to think consciously about it, and examine their motivations for supporting it.

I also feel very strongly that even 'nice' body modification, unless medically necessary, should not be forced on children who cannot themselves choose to consent to it or not.

Feel free to continue ranting though about how I am single handedly undermining the fight against FGM, or whatever else you wish.

What does this have to do with anything? As a baby, you don't have choices and your parents make decisions on your behalf.


YOU said "if you do not want one, do not have one".
The issue in fact is "if you do not want one for your kids, do not let them have it".

That is why multiple people, including myself, called you on it.

I didn't know this was such a horrible and unheard of thing.

Yes. Worrying is it not ? That you never even thought about it that is.
After all, it seems the penis is of great cultural and religious significance. The small benefits inherent in circumcision are only relevant in countries with poor hygiene and for sexually active people that do not use proper protection. Things that in our western nations are... well.. not that significant for babies unless you have some very sick and twisted parents.

And yet we MUST do it to our children. Why ?

I think comparing it to Female Genital Mutilation is also rather pointless and should be addressed. It serves no more purpose than when the anti-abortion crowd informs me that abortion is murder and that there's a baby Holocaust perpetuated by baby-murdering Nazis.

There are points to make on the issue but calling it MGM is the equivalent of saying "Explain baby murder to me" as an opening to a discussing on abortion.



Bullshit. It's mutilation, in that it alters the body in an entirely unnecessary way. It only seems like hyperbole because there is a much worse form of mutilation done to females. But that doesn't render it not mutilation.

Why do you think they 'ought to decide for themselves?' What about this decision is different from any of the other permanent changes parents can make for their children?

In short, why is it so bloody horrible that you are "very happy" to be uncircumcised? Do you think I must be very unhappy to be circumcised?
Several reasons.

1. The hygiene issue is solved through modern first world hygiene care, rendering it worthless.

2. Potential trauma to the baby, as it's usually done with little anesthetic, and thus can be quite painful

3. It is a change that people ought to be able to decide for themselves rather than have it forced upon them.

And it is different because it's an unnecessary alteration to their body.

Incidentally I just asked my mom why I wasn't circumsized and she told me what I'm telling you now, that there was little reason for it and that it would be a decision that should be up to me, not them.

And yet we MUST do it to our children. Why ?
Don't question someone who is perfectly happy that this choice was made for him!

What does this have to do with anything? As a baby, you don't have choices and your parents make decisions on your behalf.
You said that if you didn't like it, then don't get it.
I tried to show you that this is not an option for an infant.
I didn't know this was such a horrible and unheard of thing. Apparently where you come from babies have the right to vote and drive cars and shit.
Don't be silly.

Where I come from, even babies have the right to an intact and unharmed body. It really is that simple.

And yes, circumcision is an uncommon practice in Germany.
Even in cases of light phimosis there is no definite need to take a knife to a child's pecker. It's a matter of teaching your boy bodily hygiene, is all.

Besides, skin has the fantastic ability to be flexible - so once the young boy starts masturbating, in most cases, this becomes a non-issue anyway.

Besides, skin has the fantastic ability to be flexible - so once the young boy starts masturbating, in most cases, this becomes a non-issue anyway.

As a matter of fact, masturbation is one good reason all to itself not to get circumsized, as with a foreskin you rarely need any sort of lubricant to masturbate with. Masturbation is very healthy and should be encouraged, so that's definitely a good thing.

Also--though this is hearsay--supposedly uncircumsized penises are more sensitive and thus gain higher pleasure.

FGM is called female circumcision by its supporters, because 'mutilation' is a loaded word, right?

It is in this case.

Calling circumcision 'male mutilation' is shocking, and loaded, true?

No, not that shocking. It's pretty common.

Yet if you come from a culture where the non-consensual surgical alteration of childrens' genitals is NOT common place, it can seem pretty barbaric

What does this have to do with anything? Anything you are unfamiliar with culturally can "seem barbaric." Check out 90% of the threads about Muslims for example.

, even if done in hygenic circumstances by medical professionals. The point is not to belittle FGM, which is a horrific practice even when done in hygenic circumstances. The point is to shake up people who take this sort of practice for granted, and perhaps cause them to think consciously about it, and examine their motivations for supporting it.

Unfortunately, this tends to have the effect, on me anyway, of convincing me there is no serious discussion to be had here, anymore than you'd feel inclined to seriously discuss abortion with people who insist on referring to it as 'murder.'

I also feel very strongly that even 'nice' body modification, unless medically necessary, should not be forced on children who cannot themselves choose to consent to it or not.

But then we have people who argue that even the medically necessary ones should not be forced. Why allow medically necessary ones - isn't that still an attack on the baby's rights and personhood?

Feel free to continue ranting though about how I am single handedly undermining the fight against FGM, or whatever else you wish.

Nah, I think I said what I needed to on that.... Could I take a rain check though?

As a matter of fact, masturbation is one good reason all to itself not to get circumsized, as with a foreskin you rarely need any sort of lubricant to masturbate with. Masturbation is very healthy and should be encouraged, so that's definitely a good thing.

Also--though this is hearsay--supposedly uncircumsized penises are more sensitive and thus gain higher pleasure.

I never needed lube. But I reckon that would be down to the individual entirely. I know someone who wasn't circumcised but requires lube. I doubt that circumcision is really the key factor here but I couldn't tell you. Certainly I find sensitivity to be something that is actually uncomfortably high. I only found out recently that bursting into hysterical laughter during sex because the feeling is THAT INTENSE is apparently something not many people do.

Also--though this is hearsay--supposedly uncircumsized penises are more sensitive and thus gain higher pleasure.

Sounds like a recipe for premature ejaculation to me.

Sounds like a recipe for premature ejaculation to me.
Never been true in my case. If anything I'm almost a retarded ejaculator.

Jordaxia: No, I can't say that's true of many.

I've asked my mom about it, because she had my brothers circumcised. She said that it was done automatically, they didn't ask, they just assumed she would want it done. She didn't question it because it was considered 'housekeeping' of sorts, just something you do after a boy is born.

As I said now, there is a charge for it, so they ask. Maybe only poor boys will be uncut now :P
Seeing that getting a haircut, a tattoo or a piercing is considered assault with consent, I really have to wonder about this. (That's why as a non-adult, you have to have your parents' consent to even get your earlobes pierced.)
Why do you think they 'ought to decide for themselves?' What about this decision is different from any of the other permanent changes parents can make for their children?
Because it's a permanent alteration of the body and, as I stated earlier, every person, no matter how young, has the right to an intact, unaltered body.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PiercedBaby.jpg
"Mommy and Daddy decided for me"

Doesn't really cut it, does it?

What other permanent changes do you think of that are comparable with this?

Unfortunately, this tends to have the effect, on me anyway, of convincing me there is no serious discussion to be had here, anymore than you'd feel inclined to seriously discuss abortion with people who insist on referring to it as 'murder.'
Well colour me unworried. You are the only one so far that has not treated the topic seriously, and this suggests a failing on your part, rather than on mine. Try not to be so narrow-minded, it could help.


But then we have people who argue that even the medically necessary ones should not be forced. Why allow medically necessary ones - isn't that still an attack on the baby's rights and personhood?

I'm someone who argues that medically necessary treatments should not be forced on people who can give informed consent. I can't speak for those who don't believe ANY medically necessary treatment should be forced on anyone, regardless of ability to consent or not.

With those that cannot consent, someone needs to be making choices for them. Once a person can be fully informed, and has the capacity to consent or not, those choices should be up to him or her.



Nah, I think I said what I needed to on that.... Could I take a rain check though?
No need to ask, there is always a rain cheque for frothing at the mouth on NSG!

Jordaxia: No, I can't say that's true of many.

Weirdos. :P

I find the term male genital mutilation to be inflammatory, sensationalist, and offensive. Please, I prefer the term partial penile amputation.

I find the term male genital mutilation to be inflammatory, sensationalist, and offensive. Please, I prefer the term partial penile amputation.

kehehehehhehe

There are legit debates to be had about the merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision. There are reasonable arguments that reasonable people can have regarding any cosmetic modifications to the genitals, particularly when children enter the equation.

But comparing circumcision to "genital mutilation" does not remotely fit into any such debates or arguments. Implying that circumcision as performed on boys and men in Western countries is remotely equivalent to female genital mutilation would be laughable, if it weren't so inaccurate, ignorant, and dishonest. Absolutely nothing is gained by this kind of emotive language, unless one's goal is simply to cause tempers to flare and to prevent anything approaching productive discussion.

I'd expect better.

kehehehehhehe
I'm sure men like my cousin, who chose to be circumcised as an adult, will be charmed to hear this Junior High snickering over their "penile amputations."

Seriously, are folks really incapable of being grownups when it comes to the penis?

There are legit debates to be had about the merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision. There are reasonable arguments that reasonable people can have regarding any cosmetic modifications to the genitals, particularly when children enter the equation.

But comparing circumcision to "genital mutilation" does not remotely fit into any such debates or arguments. Implying that circumcision as performed on boys and men in Western countries is remotely equivalent to female genital mutilation would be laughable, if it weren't so inaccurate, ignorant, and dishonest. Absolutely nothing is gained by this kind of emotive language, unless one's goal is simply to cause tempers to flare and to prevent anything approaching productive discussion.

I'd expect better.

^This.

I'd expect better.
Oh noes! I haven't lived up to Bottle's expectations! I have failed to be uber serious on my quest to be uber provocative. Funnily enough, the only people whining about the title are the ones who aren't really engaging in the debate itself. I'd expect better.

I'm sure men like my cousin, who chose to be circumcised as an adult, will be charmed to hear this Junior High snickering over their "penile amputations."

Seriously, are folks really incapable of being grownups when it comes to the penis?
As incapable as those with large wooden objects stuck in their rectums are of not taking themselves, or a title, too seriously, apparently.

Note to self...topics that must be taken seriously and referred to with only the utmost respect at all times: um....circumcision. Any others? Rape I suppose.

Why is this practice still around,

Religious reasons and alleged health benefits. And the fact that it is mostly harmless (regardless of whether or not you think it is ethical), so it's hard to garner much will to stop people from doing it.

and will any of you, as parents, perpetuate it?

Probably not.

I'm sure men like my cousin, who chose to be circumcised as an adult, will be charmed to hear this Junior High snickering over their "penile amputations."

Seriously, are folks really incapable of being grownups when it comes to the penis?

Probably not. Which only strengthens my claim that the penis currently is of some cultural significance.

However - what term do you suggest to refer to "circumcision of infants" which properly expresses the disdain some people have for it without making it sound childish or immature ? Not everyone shares your opinion that it is not a big deal after all.

Probably not. Which only strengthens my claim that the penis currently is of some cultural significance.

However - what term do you suggest to refer to "circumcision of infants" which properly expresses the disdain some people have for it without making it sound childish or immature ? Not everyone shares your opinion that it is not a big deal after all.

Why not use "circumcision of infants", since that's the actual act being discussed? Why do you need an emotive term for it?

That's interesting, because I'm assuming this was a number of years ago, yes? Wasn't it fairly common then? Did anyone question you about it? Was it a practice your family considered normal? I don't know many people from your generation that didn't have their boys circumcised, so I find it really fascinating.
23 years ago tomorrow!

no one from the family asked about it.

as i recall, the pediatrician asked if we wanted it done but wasnt pushy about it... in childbirth classes the practice was questioned.... and my husband isnt so there is none of that "looking like daddy" foolishness. my cousing who had a son at the same time had her son circumcised....ewww little tiny baby boy circumcised penises are creepy looking.

Why not use "circumcision of infants", since that's the actual act being discussed? Why do you need an emotive term for it?

Because hyperbolic excess is enjoyable, controversial, and apparently really makes your anus itchy?

But then we have people who argue that even the medically necessary ones should not be forced. Why allow medically necessary ones - isn't that still an attack on the baby's rights and personhood?

No. Think about it this way:

We let parents decide to get immunizations for their children, right? Now, if the parents just decided they felt like poking their child with needles, would we allow that?

We let parents decide whether or not a child will receive surgery to correct a heart valve defect, right? Would we let the parents decide just to cut into the child's chest on a whim?

Parents make medical decisions for children because the children are not yet competent enough to make those decisions for themselves. That is different from making permanent aesthetic or religious decisions - which is something I believe should not be in the hands of the parent.

Note to self...topics that must be taken seriously and referred to with only the utmost respect at all times: um....circumcision. Any others? Rape I suppose.

http://rand.stubbedtoe.co.nz/images/serious_business.jpg

Why not use "circumcision of infants", since that's the actual act being discussed? Why do you need an emotive term for it?

*I* don't. But somehow I doubt the topic would have as much posts without it.
Remember: humans are lazy. You have to shake them.

Besides, Bottle seems to have no problem whatsoever with calling female circumcision "mutilation". While I respect (and agree with) her opinion that that is vastly more serious than the male variety, she should realise not everyone does. If she wants people to refer to it in a different way, she is free to suggest how.

23 years ago tomorrow!

no one from the family asked about it.

as i recall, the pediatrician asked if we wanted it done but wasnt pushy about it... in childbirth classes the practice was questioned.... and my husband isnt so there is none of that "looking like daddy" foolishness. my cousing who had a son at the same time had her son circumcised....ewww little tiny baby boy circumcised penises are creepy looking.

Congrats to your son, or rather to you who pushed him out of your hooha 23 years ago tomorrow:)

Yeah it's not something I hear a lot of people talking about...always wonder what motivates people to do it. I am surprised though, when I do ask, how many don't have an answer for why they did it...other than, well...it was done that way?

Because hyperbolic excess is enjoyable, controversial, and apparently really makes your anus itchy?

I love that you resort to mockery when I pose a simple question.

I suppose, then, you have no problem with people referring to abortion as "baby murder"?

Oh noes! I haven't lived up to Bottle's expectations! I have failed to be uber serious on my quest to be uber provocative. Funnily enough, the only people whining about the title are the ones who aren't really engaging in the debate itself. I'd expect better.


The problem is there's nothing to debate within the context of your OP. People who do it for religious reasons aren't going to change the minds of people who don't, and vice versa. It would be just like the other umpteen million debates on here where those who do it are doing it because God said so, and those who don't say He doesn't. I can tell you those who have a religious reason aren't going to see it in the terms your title uses.

At best you can debate the merits of circumcision w/respect to the health benefits, which is fine, but not everybody is going to see that in a title that makes it pretty clear what answer you, as the OP want to hear and what you think of people who aren't going to agree. Not much point to that either, IMHO.

And if somebody thinks your title sucks, then that doesn't mean they have a stick up their ass. It means they think your title sucks. Take a deep breath and deal. It ain't like you've never gotten pissy over a thread title before.

My position(since I voted:) My religion, as it happens, doesn't push circumcision but I picked that option anyway because I was Catholic when my sons were born, and while I don't think the Catholic Church really pushes it anymore it is traditional and so I told the doctor to do it both times. If I have another son now that I'm not Catholic anymore I'll probably still do it because I happen to think the health benefits are worth it.

I love that you resort to mockery when I pose a simple question. I'm glad I bring you joy.

I suppose, then, you have no problem with people referring to abortion as "baby murder"?I will laugh at them, but oddly enough I can still engage in an abortion debate with people who are making reasonable points..even the OP, if he/she used an 'emotive term' in the thread. I understand if you feel that you must be limited only to a discussion of the title. Well no, I don't understand it, but I accept it. I understand how hard it can be to get over things like this. Take your time.

No. Think about it this way:

We let parents decide to get immunizations for their children, right? Now, if the parents just decided they felt like poking their child with needles, would we allow that?

We let parents decide whether or not a child will receive surgery to correct a heart valve defect, right? Would we let the parents decide just to cut into the child's chest on a whim?

Parents make medical decisions for children because the children are not yet competent enough to make those decisions for themselves. That is different from making permanent aesthetic or religious decisions - which is something I believe should not be in the hands of the parent.

You choose to view circumcision as an aesthetic or religious decision. Previous posts have shown that there are completely valid medical reasons for circumcision.

Yeah it's not something I hear a lot of people talking about...always wonder what motivates people to do it. I am surprised though, when I do ask, how many don't have an answer for why they did it...other than, well...it was done that way?

Most people seem to go the "it's cleaner" route when I ask. But then the only source they generally have for that is "it's what people say."

In the US, they pushed pretty hard for it for a while and I think it just became something in society that no one bothered to question.

I'm glad I bring you joy.
I will laugh at them, but oddly enough I can still engage in an abortion debate with people who are making reasonable points..even the OP, if he/she used an 'emotive term' in the thread. I understand if you feel that you must be limited only to a discussion of the title. Well no, I don't understand it, but I accept it. I understand how hard it can be to get over things like this. Take your time.

More flamebait. You are completely incapable of acting like an adult.

You choose to view circumcision as an aesthetic or religious decision. Previous posts have shown that there are completely valid medical reasons for circumcision.

Valid only in cases where there is insufficient availability of hygiene facilities.

You choose to view circumcision as an aesthetic or religious decision. Previous posts have shown that there are completely valid medical reasons for circumcision.

Really ? There have been posts in this topic giving completely valid medical reasons to cicumcise a toddler living in a first world nation and who is not supposed to be sexually active ?

I must have missed them. My apologies. Link please ?

Bullshit. It's mutilation, in that it alters the body in an entirely unnecessary way.

Really? I'm circumcised because I wasn't able to pee anymore as an infant, so it wasn't unnecessary in this special case. So, am I not mutilated because it made sense, while somebody who had exactly the same procedure done for religious reasons IS mutilated?

Anyway, I wouldn't circumcise my baby unless necessary. I certainly don't miss anything, though.

(a little anecdotal evidence here from a man who only knows about circumcised sex - yes, I do seem to have a higher endurance than others, as witnessed by some women. On the downside, I'm a bit sensitive to, uhm, heavy tongue friction, which may seem counterintuitive to what people traditionally expect... maybe 'cause there's none of this dreaded "scar tissue" that people keep talking about, my parent's didn't send my to a witch doctor!)

Valid only in cases where there is insufficient availability of hygiene facilities.

Sufficiently available hygiene facilities make circumcision not provide those benefits?

The problem is there's nothing to debate within the context of your OP. People who do it for religious reasons aren't going to change the minds of people who don't, and vice versa. It would be just like the other umpteen million debates on here where those who do it are doing it because God said so, and those who don't say He doesn't. I can tell you those who have a religious reason aren't going to see it in the terms your title uses.

I don't assume that all religious people (where circumcision is a religious practice) are going to do it. Even if they do decide to follow their religious tenants, I would hope that they'd think about it a bit consciously. I AM interested in that little dialogue. Particularly in the context of making such a choice for someone who may turn out to not want to be a part of that religion. I'm also not entirely sure what the religious justification is...I wouldn't mind being enlightened. I know nearly nothing about the practice in its religious context., how it began, what it means, and so forth.

At best you can debate the merits of circumcision w/respect to the health benefits, which is fine, but not everybody is going to see that in a title that makes it pretty clear what answer you, as the OP want to hear and what you think of people who aren't going to agree. Not much point to that either, IMHO. Yes, I have been horribly judgmental to anyone here who has suggested that circumcision is a-ok with them.

Oh wait.

*shrugs* If you, and Bottle, and Sdaeriji want to harp on how unfair I am, and how horrible my title is, and how it's impossible now to have a real discussion, feel free. The rest of us are (OMG!) having a real discussion.

And if somebody thinks your title sucks, then that doesn't mean they have a stick up their ass. It means they think your title sucks. Take a deep breath and deal. It ain't like you've never gotten pissy over a thread title before. And it's not like people avoided making fun of me for it.

Really. I'm sure you'll all live.

My position(since I voted:) My religion, as it happens, doesn't push circumcision but I picked that option anyway because I was Catholic when my sons were born, and while I don't think the Catholic Church really pushes it anymore it is traditional and so I told the doctor to do it both times. If I have another son now that I'm not Catholic anymore I'll probably still do it because I happen to think the health benefits are worth it.

Circumcision is traditional amongst Catholics? Really? I know a lot of Christians had their sons circumcised, but I never heard anyone say it was for religious reasons. Can you expand? How long was this a practice, and any idea of why it began or has fallen out of favour?

When you were a Catholic, did you weigh the health benefits, or did you only consider the tradition?

Ah, yes, only a thread about circumsition could've turned into an epic and convoluted pissing match.

More flamebait. You are completely incapable of acting like an adult.

Yes. My inability to be a robot makes it so. Poor you, I'm so mean, not taking you seriously and all.

Ah, yes, only a thread about circumsition could've turned into an epic and convoluted pissing match.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg

You went there.

Ah, yes, only a thread about circumsition could've turned into an epic and convoluted pissing match.

You're right, that almost never happens on NSG.:p

Do you think circumcised boys can piss further than uncircumcised boys?

You're right, that almost never happens on NSG.:p

But of course it never happens. You should be annoyed, Sin. This is NSG after all.:wink:

The problem is there's nothing to debate within the context of your OP. People who do it for religious reasons aren't going to change the minds of people who don't, and vice versa. It would be just like the other umpteen million debates on here where those who do it are doing it because God said so, and those who don't say He doesn't. I can tell you those who have a religious reason aren't going to see it in the terms your title uses.

My question in that debate would be:

Should someone be able to permanently alter someone else's body because of his own religious convictions?

At best you can debate the merits of circumcision w/respect to the health benefits, which is fine, but not everybody is going to see that in a title that makes it pretty clear what answer you, as the OP want to hear and what you think of people who aren't going to agree. Not much point to that either, IMHO.

On this, I think there is a genuine debate. Personally, I'm not convinced by the research out there that circumcision is necessary or even preferable. So, based on current information, I wouldn't have it done. Other parents might find it more compelling.

But personally, I would say that medical reasons are the only motivation for infant circumcision that should be legally permissible. Unfortunately, there's no real way to enforce that. Someone who wanted to do it for other reasons could just say they were doing it for medical reasons.


You choose to view circumcision as an aesthetic or religious decision. Previous posts have shown that there are completely valid medical reasons for circumcision.

I have no quarrel with "completely valid" medical reasons for circumcision. I have some quarrel with the supposed medical benefits of circumcision that I believe are largely unsupported, but I am willing to concede that others can look at the same evidence I have and come to different conclusions.

It is religious and aesthetic reasons that I absolutely and completely disagree with when talking about this subject.

(If you go back and look at the conversation thread I jumped into, you'll find that the question being asked was why medically necessary circumcisions were ok, while others were not.)

Really? I'm circumcised because I wasn't able to pee anymore as an infant, so it wasn't unnecessary in this special case. So, am I not mutilated because it made sense, while somebody who had exactly the same procedure done for religious reasons IS mutilated?

Anyway, I wouldn't circumcise my baby unless necessary. I certainly don't miss anything, though.

(a little anecdotal evidence here from a man who only knows about circumcised sex - yes, I do seem to have a higher endurance than others, as witnessed by some women. On the downside, I'm a bit sensitive to, uhm, heavy tongue friction, which may seem counterintuitive to what people traditionally expect... maybe 'cause there's none of this dreaded "scar tissue" that people keep talking about, my parent's didn't send my to a witch doctor!)
Oh, in your case, it's not, because it was done for legitimate medical reasons.

Your case, however, is extremely atypical.

Sufficiently available hygiene facilities make circumcision not provide those benefits?

Sufficiently available hygiene facilities makes circumcision redundant.

Oh, in your case, it's not, because it was done for legitimate medical reasons.

Your case, however, is extremely atypical.

It's a good point though...would you still call it mutilation if it was done for medically necessary reasons? How does the same thing, done for two different reasons, get a different name?

Do you think circumcised boys can piss further than uncircumcised boys?

Ok, LOL! Now I can't stop laughing. It would be awesome though, to take one circumsiced Generalite and one uncircumcised Generalite, put them together in a pissing contest, and see who pisses the furthest!:D

It's a good point though...would you still call it mutilation if it was done for medically necessary reasons? How does the same thing, done for two different reasons, get a different name?

In the case of legitimate medical need, it is not mutilation, anymore than amputating a foot or an arm would be if there was legitimate medical need to do so.

Without that need it becomes mutilation because it is unnecessary.

there is also the cervical cancer risk reduction.
Women who are married to men that have had over 6 partners in a lifetime have a significantly lower risk of cervical cancer.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020701/tips/8.html

But if you get the vaccine for the HPV that causes cervical cancer then there's no problem.

I wonder why the hell it's so popular to get the snip in the US and Canada, compared to western europe?
Always pondered that.

AFAIK it's by far the norm over here not to get a wee snip.

In the case of legitimate medical need, it is not mutilation, anymore than amputating a foot or an arm would be if there was legitimate medical need to do so.

Without that need it becomes mutilation because it is unnecessary.

Dunno, even if I had a foot amputated for legitimate reasons, I'd probably still consider myself a bit mutilated.

I know nearly nothing about the practice in its religious context., how it began, what it means, and so forth.

Simple. Jews had an astonishing sense for health issues (some of their rules about when to dispose or not to dispose contaminated food look as if they knew quite a lot about bacteria). They must have been really good at observing stuff like this over a long time... whether they just noticed and thought "let's say God commanded this, then our kids will stick to it" or if they rather thought "the circumcised boys had less diseases, God must have rewarded them", I do not know. I'd assume the latter, though.

Always pondered that.

AFAIK it's by far the norm over here not to get a wee snip.

This is really, really strange, if you think about it. What is the motivation I wonder? Did the 'health' benefits get pushed here and not in Europe? If so, why?

It's a good point though...would you still call it mutilation if it was done for medically necessary reasons? How does the same thing, done for two different reasons, get a different name?

Easy - intent matters.
If I chop off your leg because I like to see you suffer, I am torturing you (or at least, being a jerk).
If I do so because it is inside a crocodile, trap or whatever and it is the only thing I can do to let you survive it is something you should thank me for.

More directly related to the topic: if an adult (male or female) decides to have him/herself circumcised, that is their right. Just like they can pierce their genitals, tattoo little elephants around them or chop them off completely and consume them with a nice Chardonnay. Not saying any of those things is wise, not saying that they should - merely that they have that right.

But if they do it to someone else without that persons consent... well...

Ok, LOL! Now I can't stop laughing. It would be awesome though, to take one circumsiced Generalite and one uncircumcised Generalite, put them together in a pissing contest, and see who pisses the furthest!:D

I would... but, I don't wont to embarrass anyone.

Simple. Jews had an astonishing sense for health issues (some of their rules about when to dispose or not to dispose contaminated food look as if they knew quite a lot about bacteria). They must have been really good at observing stuff like this over a long time... whether they just noticed and thought "let's say God commanded this, then our kids will stick to it" or if they rather thought "the circumcised boys had less diseases, God must have rewarded them", I do not know. I'd assume the latter, though.

Wikipedia sheds some light, not much though, on this:
Jewish law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha) states that circumcision is a 'mitzva aseh ("positive commandment" to perform an act) and is obligatory for Jewish-born males and some Jewish male converts. It is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child.[32] It is usually performed by a mohel on the eighth day after birth in a ceremony called a Brit milah (or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris), which means "Covenant of circumcision" in Hebrew. It is considered of such religious importance that the body of an uncircumcised Jewish male will sometimes be circumcised before burial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumsision#Cultures_and_religions

More directly related to the topic: if an adult (male or female) decides to have him/herself circumcised, that is their right. Just like they can pierce it, tattoo little elephants around it or chop them off completely and consume them with a nice Chardonnay. Not saying any of those things is wise, not saying that they should - merely that they have that right.

I have an elephant tattooed on my penis. The tattoo is actual size.

I would... but, I don't wont to embarrass anyone.

If you did, you would embarrass your mum.

I have an elephant tattooed on my penis. The tattoo is actual size.

Is this true, Nanatsu?

I don't assume that all religious people (where circumcision is a religious practice) are going to do it. Even if they do decide to follow their religious tenants, I would hope that they'd think about it a bit consciously. I AM interested in that little dialogue. Particularly in the context of making such a choice for someone who may turn out to not want to be a part of that religion. I'm also not entirely sure what the religious justification is...I wouldn't mind being enlightened. I know nearly nothing about the practice in its religious context., how it began, what it means, and so forth.

Circumcision is traditional amongst Catholics? Really? I know a lot of Christians had their sons circumcised, but I never heard anyone say it was for religious reasons. Can you expand? How long was this a practice, and any idea of why it began or has fallen out of favour?

When you were a Catholic, did you weigh the health benefits, or did you only consider the tradition?

At the time I actually wasn't aware of the health benefits. (My sons are 16 and 13 now.) That came to light later on. I also became a parent very early in life so I can tell you my decision was not all that informed at the time, although looking back I'm still glad I did it. In short:Tradition alone.

In terms of how it all got started, the Old Testament talks about God commanding the practice in order to give the Israelites a separate cultural identity, a way to identify them as separate from the other cultures at the time. It seems likely to me (and this part is just my opinion) that the health benefits resulted in a sort of de facto blessing for the people who obeyed that command. Thus, circumcision served multiple purposes.

So while the Mormon Church doesn't push circumcision, I'll still probably have it done for any future sons I may have.

My question in that debate would be:

Should someone be able to permanently alter someone else's body because of his own religious convictions?

My short answer is "yes."

Although I know you and I disagree and why, since we had a similar discussion before although the exact topic escapes me at the moment.

I believe that in a religion that truly adhered to God's will such things bring about benefits that may not be obvious at the time. Sort of like when Joseph Smith was told to avoid tobacco. The reasoning wasn't known at the time (in fact many medical men believed tobacco to be beneficial.) but those who obeyed found themselves living longer, healthier lives.

The problem, of course, is that we can't evaluate what religion(s) are genuine and which aren't, all other things being equal. Thus my inclination is always weighted toward the religious and cultural rights of the parent. Would that include jamming a railroad spike through somebody's scrotum? Well no... the line is drawn somewhere, but I don't see it as absolutely as you seem to.


On this, I think there is a genuine debate. Personally, I'm not convinced by the research out there that circumcision is necessary or even preferable. So, based on current information, I wouldn't have it done. Other parents might find it more compelling.

But personally, I would say that medical reasons are the only motivation for infant circumcision that should be legally permissible. Unfortunately, there's no real way to enforce that. Someone who wanted to do it for other reasons could just say they were doing it for medical reasons.


True, but then again that's one reason why it's not even good to try to interfere in someone's religious practices unless there's clear harm being done. I know some people feel circumcision is harmful, but that's an opinion, not a medical consensus.

I still want to know about the Catholic religious connection...never heard that before!

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision) has an odd section on how it might have been viewed as a way to prevent masturbation? I particularly enjoy the term 'mastubatory insanity' btw.

Edit: Thanks Neo B.

I still want to know about the Catholic religious connection...never heard that before!

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision) has an odd section on how it might have been viewed as a way to prevent masturbation? I particularly enjoy the term 'mastubatory insanity' btw.

That could make sense, given that masturbation would be more difficult without lubrication, for many.

I still want to know about the Catholic religious connection...never heard that before!

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision) has an odd section on how it might have been viewed as a way to prevent masturbation? I particularly enjoy the term 'mastubatory insanity' btw.
Man, I feel sorry for jews.

I've slept with one man with a circumised penis. I enjoyed the temporary novelty, but I still think the practise is fucking retarded in all forms (sans medical/fuctional problems with the foreskin).

I do not understand the reasoning behind those who advocate it. It might provide an incredibly slim protection against HIV, an even weaker advantage of cleanliness, but both these things can be overcome with completely non-mutilatory actions. It makes no sense. At all.

I still want to know about the Catholic religious connection...never heard that before!

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision) has an odd section on how it might have been viewed as a way to prevent masturbation? I particularly enjoy the term 'mastubatory insanity' btw.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church sees itself as the spiritual successor to ancient Judaism. It's easy to imagine that carrying over.

Is this true, Nanatsu?

Galloism's penis is a secretive penis.

Besides that, we're talking circumsicion, not dick tattoos.

Galloism's penis is a secretive penis.

That's just another way of saying it's small.

That's just another way of saying it's small.

Nah, it sneaks around very quietly without being noticed, and then...

Surprise! buttsecks!!

That's just another way of saying it's small.

Aren't you a bit too... young to be involved in this discussion? Aren't you supposed to be in bed?

Nah, it sneaks around very quietly without being noticed, and then...

Surprise! buttsecks!!
Ah, if only mine could sneak. So, there are advantages.
Aren't you a bit too... young to be involved in this discussion? Aren't you supposed to be in bed?

Not without someone to keep me company.

If I end up having kids and one turns out to be a boy, I will not have him circumcised. There's no pressing need to do it to a baby, they cannot be properly anesthitized, and really it's a decision he can make for himself. If he wants to have it done later in life, he's free to do so and I'd totally support him.

It's actually a deal-breaker with marriage for me. I will never marry someone who insists on circumcision.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church sees itself as the spiritual successor to ancient Judaism. It's easy to imagine that carrying over.

By extension, protestantism, mormonism, etc all sprung from the same source. It would be easy for it to carry forward in each successive iteration.

Besides that, we're talking circumsicion, not dick tattoos.

But why are we not talking about such things ?

After all, all the medical reasons to circumcise a boy mentioned in this topic sofar have to do with sex. People claim there is better protection against STDs, better endurance etc.

Now, take a prince Albert. People also claim that those can add something to your sexlife. So why can I not pierce my little babies dick without getting people calling me all sorts of bad things ? Sure - the kid will not actually benefit from it until he is much older, but hey - the same is true for circumcision. I do not have to wait for him to age there, so why would I have to wait here ? It is all for his benefit !

But why are we not talking about such things ?

Because the OP isn't about dick tattoos? Maybe?

After all, all the medical reasons to circumcise a boy mentioned in this topic sofar have to do with sex. People claim there is better protection against STDs, better endurance etc.

Both sexual, hygiene and religious reasons have been mentioned. Not all have to do with sex and you know it.

Now, take a prince Albert. People also claim that those can add something to your sexlife. So why can I not pierce my little babies dick without getting people calling me all sorts of bad things ? Sure - the kid will not actually benefit from it until he is much older, but hey - the same is true for circumcision. I do not have to wait for him to age there, so why would I have to wait here ? It is all for his benefit !

I ain't touching this one.

I am rather surprised that not only does the poll not feature an "I don't know, seeing as I'm not planning on producing any babies through asexual reproduction, and I figure the other parent ought to have a say, too" option, but that no one other than me has apparently been bothered by it. I would no more independently decide such a thing than I would declare what my hypothetical future children WILL be named, or what religion they WILL be raised in, or whatever.

As for the actual issue - I don't honestly have a strong opinion about it. On the one hand, I obviously agree that parents shouldn't just be able to modify their children's bodies however they like, but on the other hand, we are talking about what is honestly a pretty freaking small and harmless modification. I am frankly much more offended by parents who pierce their baby's ears than parents who choose to have their sons circumcised. If I were presented with reasonable evidence suggesting health benefits to circumcision, I'd probably support getting it done. If not, I probably wouldn't. Either way, the kid's hypothetical father would have at least as big a say as I did, if not more.

Both sexual, hygiene and religious reasons have been mentioned. Not all have to do with sex and you know it.

I said medical reasons, so religion is out. The hygiene one has been thoroughly debunked for first world nations already. So that leaves sex.

I ain't touching this one.

Why not ? The comparison is valid. The child would benefit according to the parents. Its own opinions are considered irrelevant.
If you want I can even look up a religion that supports this. Africa or India are sure to have a few dozen.

By extension, protestantism, mormonism, etc all sprung from the same source. It would be easy for it to carry forward in each successive iteration.

That's true, and I can't speak for the Protestants, but Mormonism tends to be somewhat more pragmatic than Catholicism in this sort of thing.

I will say my impression is that Catholicism regards itself as much more the literal successor to ancient Judaism than the Protestants in a more formal way. A good bit of the rites and ceremony comes from there.

I said medical reasons, so religion is out. The hygiene one has been thoroughly debunked for first world nations already. So that leaves sex.

You cited medical reasons to say it's all about sex.

After all, all the medical reasons to circumcise a boy mentioned in this topic sofar have to do with sex.

Why not ? The comparison is valid. The child would benefit according to the parents. Its own opinions are considered irrelevant.
If you want I can even look up a religion that supports this. Africa or India are sure to have a few dozen.

Knock yourself out.

You cited medical reasons to say it's all about sex.

No I did not. I said that all the medical reasons people sofar had brought up had to do with sex.

Which you know, since you even copied the quote.

Admittedly I should have said that all the medical reasons people sofar had brought up *that had not been debunked yet* had to do with sex though.

As for the religion - hurrah. I shall check on African penile rituals ASAP.

It's barbaric, and should be illegal.

My son isn't circumcised, because I didn't want people to chop parts of his penis off. I'm odd like that.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church sees itself as the spiritual successor to ancient Judaism. It's easy to imagine that carrying over.

The Catholic church are either lying to themselves or deluded, then. Islam is closer to Judaism than any Christian denomination - and most Christian denominations are closer than Catholicism, simply by virtue of not adding even MORE material to come between their path and the Hebrew scripture.

In fact, (obviously) short of Mormonism, it's hard to get further FROM Judaism, than Catholicism.

It's barbaric, and should be illegal.

My son isn't circumcised, because I didn't want people to chop parts of his penis off. I'm odd like that.

Barbaric? WFT?

Barbaric? WFT?

Barbaric. As in 'savage', 'without civilizing influences', 'crude and uncivilized'.

Barbaric. As in 'savage', 'without civilizing influences', 'crude and uncivilized'.

Me.

Barbaric. As in 'savage', 'without civilizing influences', 'crude and uncivilized'.

You're a very odd person.

You're a very odd person.

Because I explained what the word 'barbaric' means?

The Catholic church are either lying to themselves or deluded, then. Islam is closer to Judaism than any Christian denomination - and most Christian denominations are closer than Catholicism, simply by virtue of not adding even MORE material to come between their path and the Hebrew scripture.

In fact, (obviously) short of Mormonism, it's hard to get further FROM Judaism, than Catholicism.

So... your means of deciding how close a religion is to Judaism is the amount of Scripture they use?

Because I explained what the word 'barbaric' means?

No, dearie. Because you think it's barbaric.

Not certain what genital mutilation is.
Would the five step Jacobs ladder I Had be that ?
If that's the case because I liked having metal on my junk.

Me.

You? Barbaric? aren't you just a poor, innocent Southern boy who knows nothing about nothing? *smirk*;)

You? Barbaric? aren't you just a poor, innocent Southern boy who knows nothing about nothing? *smirk*;)

We all are.

We all are.

You're just fucking sick and you know it.:tongue:

You're just fucking sick and you know it.:tongue:

Because I mentioned all southern boys are innocent to the ways of the world ?

Because I mentioned all southern boys are innocent to the ways of the world ?

No, because I am a Spaniard and I am contrary. Go back to the OP or I'll cut yours and Galloism's dicks and boil them for a stew.

No, because I am a Spaniard and I am contrary. Go back to the OP or I'll cut yours and Galloism's dicks and boil them for a stew.

You will find mine is not unguarded.
as crazy as that defender might be.

Sufficiently available hygiene facilities make circumcision not provide those benefits?

They seem to make whatever benefits that may be provided by circumcision immeasurable. Most of the studies with any demonstrated health benefits have been carried out in Africa. When researchers try to repeat those same studies in 1st-world countries, they see no significant difference.

My short answer is "yes."

Although I know you and I disagree and why, since we had a similar discussion before although the exact topic escapes me at the moment.

I think it was this same topic, actually. =)

I believe that in a religion that truly adhered to God's will such things bring about benefits that may not be obvious at the time. Sort of like when Joseph Smith was told to avoid tobacco. The reasoning wasn't known at the time (in fact many medical men believed tobacco to be beneficial.) but those who obeyed found themselves living longer, healthier lives.

And yet, we have been unable to demonstrate health benefits for circumcision in our current society. Perhaps, then, circumcision is now just as unnecessary as the food laws?

The problem, of course, is that we can't evaluate what religion(s) are genuine and which aren't, all other things being equal. Thus my inclination is always weighted toward the religious and cultural rights of the parent. Would that include jamming a railroad spike through somebody's scrotum? Well no... the line is drawn somewhere, but I don't see it as absolutely as you seem to.

I think religious decisions are to be made by the faithful for themselves, not by someone else for them. So my inclination is weighted towards the religious and cultural rights of the child. It's one thing for a parent to take a child to a particular church because that is the church that parent goes to. It is quite another to make irreversible alterations to a child's body on the religious convictions, not of the child, but of the parent.

Personally, I don't even agree with having a child christened, as I don't think it is the parent's place to actually induct their child into a given religion (although I am going to have to come up with another excuse to have a christening gown).

True, but then again that's one reason why it's not even good to try to interfere in someone's religious practices unless there's clear harm being done. I know some people feel circumcision is harmful, but that's an opinion, not a medical consensus.

I don't think there's any valid argument that circumcision is not harm. You're cutting off a living, functional part of the body. That is unarguably (shouldn't it be inarguably? firefox says no) harm. The question is whether or not it is justifiable harm. When a surgeon cuts into someone's chest to repair a heart defect, he is doing harm, but the good he does in repairing the defect outweighs the harm done by the surgeon.

The difference between you and I is that you seem to say that a certain level of harm is ok with or without justification, because it is the parents deciding it. I, on the other hand, believe that parents should have to justify harm that they cause their child, even if it is relatively slight (although slight harm is obviously easier to justify than grievous harm).

The difference is that I think children have all the same rights as any other human being. Parents are given authority over them not because of some parental right, but instead because the child is not yet competent to make all of his own decisions, and thus needs a caretaker. But that only gives parents the authority that they need in order to carry out their role. I don't see any reason that parents need the authority to make permanent changes to a child's body that are not medical in nature.

So... your means of deciding how close a religion is to Judaism is the amount of Scripture they use?

No.

Islam is closer to Judaism because it has much of the same philosophy, and because they have the same number of gods.

Catholicism (and Mormonism) are further from Judaism than pretty much all other forms of Christianity, because they have added more and different theology.

Of course, any version of Christianity that isn't polytheistic (so - the Witnesses, for example) is much closer than any polytheistic denomination.

No, dearie. Because you think it's barbaric.

It is barbaric. That doesn't make me odd.

Chopping off parts of people's bodies, because something about it makes YOU feel good? That's barbaric.

It is barbaric. That doesn't make me odd.

Chopping off parts of people's bodies, because something about it makes YOU feel good? That's barbaric.

You can't be serious. It's not like it's some sick satanic ritual.

You can't be serious. It's not like it's some sick satanic ritual.

But it is mutilation.

I think it was this same topic, actually. =)


Could be... or maybe it was something similar and circumcision came into it.... hmm...


And yet, we have been unable to demonstrate health benefits for circumcision in our current society. Perhaps, then, circumcision is now just as unnecessary as the food laws?

That's debatable though. There is evidence to indicate a benefit. Now, whether that makes it worth it is up to the individual to decide.


I think religious decisions are to be made by the faithful for themselves, not by someone else for them. So my inclination is weighted towards the religious and cultural rights of the child. It's one thing for a parent to take a child to a particular church because that is the church that parent goes to. It is quite another to make irreversible alterations to a child's body on the religious convictions, not of the child, but of the parent.

Personally, I don't even agree with having a child christened, as I don't think it is the parent's place to actually induct their child into a given religion (although I am going to have to come up with another excuse to have a christening gown).


My church doesn't baptize until the age of 8 as a minimum, and it must be up to the child to choose. At the same time, the average Mormon child is obviously going to choose to go ahead with it by virtue of their religious upbringing to that point.


I don't think there's any valid argument that circumcision is not harm. You're cutting off a living, functional part of the body. That is unarguably (shouldn't it be inarguably? firefox says no) harm. The question is whether or not it is justifiable harm. When a surgeon cuts into someone's chest to repair a heart defect, he is doing harm, but the good he does in repairing the defect outweighs the harm done by the surgeon.


Ok, I'll concede the terminology on that.


The difference between you and I is that you seem to say that a certain level of harm is ok with or without justification, because it is the parents deciding it. I, on the other hand, believe that parents should have to justify harm that they cause their child, even if it is relatively slight (although slight harm is obviously easier to justify than grievous harm).

Let me tweak that a bit. I'm not saying that there's no justification, only that the justification should be left up to the parent. In my case, I had it done for my sons as a matter of religious tradition, but implicit in that is the idea that there is a tangible benefit that we accept on faith even if that benefit isn't obvious at the time.

Now, my justification would be my belief in the health benefits since my religion no longer has anything to do with it.


The difference is that I think children have all the same rights as any other human being. Parents are given authority over them not because of some parental right, but instead because the child is not yet competent to make all of his own decisions, and thus needs a caretaker. But that only gives parents the authority that they need in order to carry out their role. I don't see any reason that parents need the authority to make permanent changes to a child's body that are not medical in nature.

One can't just exclude a religious basis merely because they don't share it. In your case (I'm guessing, do correct me if I'm mistaken) your beliefs don't include anything related to circumcision one way or the other, but to someone else it may be integral at a level that's impossible to relate to without being a member of that belief system. To a great many people that alone justifies such an action, and I can't say I'd disagree with them even though my own religious beliefs don't include it.

In that sense, a parent who chooses circumcision *IS* exercising their parental authority for the benefit of the child in a way that's at least as important as a decision on a medical treatment if not moreso, since religion deals with matters that extend well beyond the scope of mortality.

Nobody has the right to interfere.

Earlier I conceded that it can be seen as harm and that whether it's justifiable harm is what's at issue. Personally I think it's very easy to justify given the medical benefits of it as well as the very limited scope of the procedure. (Again, we're not talking railroad spikes through a scrotum here!)

But it is mutilation.

It's not harmful. So who cares?

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church sees itself as the spiritual successor to ancient Judaism. It's easy to imagine that carrying over.

It's easy to imagine, but it's also important to note that the church, after Paul's example, decided to reach out to gentiles and, when it did, dropped many of the OT laws. Since being a Jew was not a prerequisite to being Christian, circumcision was not required in most of the early church.

I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic church as a whole had adopted the practice, but if portions of it did, it was likely related to the idea that being circumcised makes a boy less likely to masturbate.

I don't think there's any valid argument that circumcision is not harm. You're cutting off a living, functional part of the body. That is unarguably (shouldn't it be inarguably? firefox says no) harm.

Hmm. But is removing the appendix harm? You most likely wouldn't notice if your parents had removed your appendix, as it's an unnecessary body part. So no harm done there... I'd argue the same goes for circumcision (I certainly wouldn't have noticed if nobody had ever mentioned the topic (or I hadn't watched any... adult films).

It's not harmful. So who cares?

So would you object to me cutting off your earlobes?

But it is mutilation.

Erm, no, not really.

Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Circumcised penises look and work fine. Claiming that they have been "mutilated" is using silly, over-emotive language. You can absolutely argue that circumcising babies is unnecessary or inappropriate, but I just don't buy "mutilation" by a long shot.

So would you object to me cutting off your earlobes?

Yes.

Circumcised penises look and work fine.

No they don't, on both counts.

No they don't, on both counts.

Comes down to preference.

Yes.

Why? You don't need them. Sure, they won't grow back, but now it's easier to clean behind your ears. It'll hurt when I do it, but after a few years you'll get used to it.

Why? You don't need them. Sure, they won't grow back, but now it's easier to clean behind your ears. It'll hurt when I do it, but after a few years you'll get used to it.

I've grown rather attached to my ears tyvm. It's not the same thing.

No they don't, on both counts.

My boyfriend is circumcised. I assure you his penis works quite charmingly. If the circumcised guys you've been with couldn't get theirs to work, well, that may not actually be a problem with them, y'know?

My boyfriend is circumcised. I assure you his penis works quite charmingly. If the circumcised guys you've been with couldn't get theirs to work, well, that may not actually be a problem with them, y'know?

Oh, they work, just not as well as uncircumsised penises. Something to do with having a fuckload of nerve endings sliced off.

One of my current boyfriends is circumsised, too.

Oh, they work, just not as well as uncircumsised penises. Something to do with having a fuckload of nerve endings sliced off.

Does it make that much difference?
One of my current boyfriends is circumsised, too
So, what are you complaining?

EDIT: One of?

Does it make that much difference?

So, what are you complaining?

EDIT: One of?

Yes, it does. It's quite simply not as sensitive. I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact. I'm quite happy to sleep with someone with a cut cock.

Yes, one of. I'm engaged in an open relationship with three men at present.

I've grown rather attached to my ears tyvm. It's not the same thing.

Oh, so its only ok to remove parts of a person's body without their consent if they're a baby? Excuse me guys, I'm off to the post-natal ward with my scissors. Time to go lobe collecting.

Me.

A little barbarism never hurt anyone. ;)

Oh, so its only ok to remove parts of a person's body without their consent if they're a baby? Excuse me guys, I'm off to the post-natal ward with my scissors. Time to go lobe collecting.

Can you pick me something up for my toe bucket?

Yes, one of. I'm engaged in an open relationship with three men at present.

Lucky shit.

Oh, so its only ok to remove parts of a person's body without their consent if they're a baby? Excuse me guys, I'm off to the post-natal ward with my scissors. Time to go lobe collecting.

It's the parents choice.

Oh, they work, just not as well as uncircumsised penises.

That seems to be very much a matter for debate. Just looking at wiki as a starting point, there are studies suggesting that circumcised penises are less sensitive, equally sensitive, and more sensitive.

Basically, my point is this - preferring uncircumcised penises is totally valid. Thinking that it is inappropriate for parents to make such a decision for an infant is totally valid. Arguing that circumcised penises are somehow inherently defective and that circumcision is "mutilation" is silly and not supported by the body of evidence available.

Can you pick me something up for my toe bucket?

I'm sure I can manage something. I'm sure the kids won't care if they only have 8 toes.
It's the parents choice.
See, if parents tried to have a doctor perform any other kind of elective surgery on their child, they'd almost certainly end up dealing with the police of social services. Or both. But since people have been cutting bits off their sons' knob for centuries nobody raises an eyebrow.

Lucky shit.

It's in the experimental phase. I'll keep you posted. Coincidentally, the one with the cut cock is the one I prefer.

I'm sure I can manage something. I'm sure the kids won't care if they only have 8 toes.

I'm pretty sure the little toe has no use anyway..

It's in the experimental phase. I'll keep you posted. Coincidentally, the one with the cut cock is the one I prefer.

lol, irony.

lol, irony.

Mostly for the history between us, but also because he's just as nuts as I am in bed. Sanguine fetishes. Delicious.

Mostly for the history between us, but also because he's just as nuts as I am in bed. Sanguine fetishes. Delicious.

Too much information.

See, if parents tried to have a doctor perform any other kind of elective surgery on their child, they'd almost certainly end up dealing with the police of social services. Or both. But since people have been cutting bits off their sons' knob for centuries nobody raises an eyebrow.

That's not actually very accurate. Quite a lot of parents get their babies' ears pierced, for example. Parents regularly get their kids braces whether the kids like it or not, and not uncommonly have some of their teeth pulled for that purpose. Society is generally accepting of parents choosing to permanently modify their kids' bodies if the modification is seen as fairly small and non-harmful.

I am rather surprised that not only does the poll not feature an "I don't know, seeing as I'm not planning on producing any babies through asexual reproduction, and I figure the other parent ought to have a say, too" option, but that no one other than me has apparently been bothered by it. I would no more independently decide such a thing than I would declare what my hypothetical future children WILL be named, or what religion they WILL be raised in, or whatever.


I think it depends on how strongly one feels about it. If one feels very strongly either way, one may not want to have children with someone who disagrees.

Take Mirkana, for instance. He's been quite clear in the past that he will not marry and have children with a woman who does not share his religious convictions. So the mother's viewpoint on something like this would have to match his own. Likewise, someone who feels very strongly that it is mutilation isn't going to be willing to have children with someone who insists on having it done.

Mostly for the history between us, but also because he's just as nuts as I am in bed. Sanguine fetishes. Delicious.

Is that... sort of... cutting fetish? Blood? Self harm?

Is that... sort of... cutting fetish? Blood? Self harm?

It's a blood fetish. It's unrelated to self-harm, it's more to do with sadomaschoism.

I think it depends on how strongly one feels about it. If one feels very strongly either way, one may not want to have children with someone who disagrees.

Take Mirkana, for instance. He's been quite clear in the past that he will not marry and have children with a woman who does not share his religious convictions. So the mother's viewpoint on something like this would have to match his own. Likewise, someone who feels very strongly that it is mutilation isn't going to be willing to have children with someone who insists on having it done.

Sure, and that makes perfect sense. I suspect, however, that most people don't fall into either of those two camps, and are more in the realm of "eh, I don't particularly like it, but it's not the worst thing ever," or "eh, it seems like it's probably healthier, I don't see a good reason not to."

I would not get my male children circumcised mainly because it is not covered by insurance. It seems like a waste of $2,000 to me and I am not Jewish or Muslim. I am uncircumcised myself but that is not really a big factor in my choosing not to. If it became medically necessary I would have it done. On the issue of circumcision I am pro choice. It should be up to the parents.

It's a blood fetish. It's unrelated to self-harm, it's more to do with sadomaschoism.

Stop making me look up big words. :mad:

So you like pain? I can see why. Never found a girl willing to beat me up. :(

So you like pain? I can see why. Never found a girl willing to beat me up. :(

I find this hard to believe.

That's not actually very accurate. Quite a lot of parents get their babies' ears pierced, for example. Parents regularly get their kids braces whether the kids like it or not, and not uncommonly have some of their teeth pulled for that purpose. Society is generally accepting of parents choosing to permanently modify their kids' bodies if the modification is seen as fairly small and non-harmful.

Ear piercings slipped my mind. Hmmm, I suppose they're not quite as bad, since they'll heal up if you let them. Still pretty ridiculous to have your child's ears pierced before they're old enough to ask you to. Braces, at least in my case, make it easier to eat things. If I had waited to get my teeth straightened until I was 18 it would have taken longer and thus hurt more. Not to mention having to spend an extra 7 years with increasingly crooked teeth.

Stop making me look up big words. :mad:

So you like pain? I can see why. Never found a girl willing to beat me up. :(

I enjoy pain, but I enjoy inflicting it more. He's the bottom. I'm the top.

This topic threatens to derail the thread.

I find this hard to believe.

I sense sarcasm.

Ear piercings slipped my mind. Hmmm, I suppose they're not quite as bad, since they'll heal up if you let them. Still pretty ridiculous to have your child's ears pierced before they're old enough to ask you to. Braces, at least in my case, make it easier to eat things. If I had waited to get my teeth straightened until I was 18 it would have taken longer and thus hurt more. Not to mention having to spend an extra 7 years with increasingly crooked teeth.

Heh, to me, ear piercings are worse. At least there is a genuine argument for circumcision offering health benefits and/or making God happy. I have yet to hear anyone even try to argue that being able to wear earrings as a toddler accomplishes either of those.

And you kinda make that point for me with the braces. My parents had four of my teeth removed so I could have braces; which seems to me like a bigger change than losing a tiny bit of skin. I am okay with this decision, because I think the benefits of getting braces outweighed the loss of those teeth. If a parent genuinely sees the possible health benefits/making God happy as outweighing the loss of a bit of skin, well, I can't quite bring myself to see them as monstrous mutilators. I can disagree and NOT think God really gives a damn about baby penises, or that the health benefits are sufficiently significant to make it worth the loss, but as a society we are largely okay with decisions, even permanent ones, made for children by parents in good faith so long as they don't cause significant harm.

That's debatable though. There is evidence to indicate a benefit. Now, whether that makes it worth it is up to the individual to decide.

There is evidence in third-world countries. Thus far, such studies have not been replicated in first-world countries.

My church doesn't baptize until the age of 8 as a minimum, and it must be up to the child to choose. At the same time, the average Mormon child is obviously going to choose to go ahead with it by virtue of their religious upbringing to that point.

I think that's actually about the age I decided to be baptized. But yes, most children will likely go with their parent's religion or something similar, just as they are likely to agree with their parent's political views - especially when they are young. It takes a while to grow out of believing that your parents are always right. =)

Let me tweak that a bit. I'm not saying that there's no justification, only that the justification should be left up to the parent. In my case, I had it done for my sons as a matter of religious tradition, but implicit in that is the idea that there is a tangible benefit that we accept on faith even if that benefit isn't obvious at the time.

Now, my justification would be my belief in the health benefits since my religion no longer has anything to do with it.

The problem with leaving the justification up to the parent is that anything the parent thinks is ok is therefore "justified." Thus, outright abuse could be called "justified" as long as the parent thought it was appropriate. I'm really talking about justification in a more universal sense. What standards can we universally apply in a legal sense?

Now, I disagree that there are any demonstrated tangible health benefits in our society, but I recognize the fact that the jury is still out on that one. So I'm willing to concede that a parent should be able to make that choice just as they should be able to choose to immunize their children.

One can't just exclude a religious basis merely because they don't share it.

Um....yes, that's exactly the reason that one can exclude a religious basis. Religious convictions should not be enforced on people who do not share them. By definition, an infant does not share the religious convictions of his parents. He is incapable of doing so.

In your case (I'm guessing, do correct me if I'm mistaken) your beliefs don't include anything related to circumcision one way or the other, but to someone else it may be integral at a level that's impossible to relate to without being a member of that belief system. To a great many people that alone justifies such an action, and I can't say I'd disagree with them even though my own religious beliefs don't include it.

And when the child is old enough to have a religious belief that makes circumcision necessary, that child can choose to do so.

What I am saying is not that one cannot choose to make changes to their bodies based upon their own religious convictions. I am arguing that one should not be able to make such changes to someone else's body - even if that someone else happens to be a child.

In that sense, a parent who chooses circumcision *IS* exercising their parental authority for the benefit of the child in a way that's at least as important as a decision on a medical treatment if not moreso, since religion deals with matters that extend well beyond the scope of mortality.

I disagree. No matter what the parent does, the child will eventually find his own religious convictions, and that is his choice to make. So, if he believes that he needs to remove his foreskin, that is his choice. It isn't a decision that needs to be made by the parent before the child is even old enough to comprehend religion.

Earlier I conceded that it can be seen as harm and that whether it's justifiable harm is what's at issue. Personally I think it's very easy to justify given the medical benefits of it as well as the very limited scope of the procedure. (Again, we're not talking railroad spikes through a scrotum here!)

Like I said, I agree that parents can make medical decisions for their children, so as long as the jury is still out on this one, they can choose circumcision if they believe that there are tangible health benefits. I disagree that there are such benefits in our society, but that just means that I'll make different medical decisions for any child that I have.

I just don't think that "my religion says I have to do this to my child" is enough to legally justify it. Your religion can dictate what you do to your own body. I don't believe your religious freedom means that you get to dictate what is done to anyone else's body.

Hmm. But is removing the appendix harm? You most likely wouldn't notice if your parents had removed your appendix, as it's an unnecessary body part. So no harm done there... I'd argue the same goes for circumcision (I certainly wouldn't have noticed if nobody had ever mentioned the topic (or I hadn't watched any... adult films).

Yes, it is harm. To do so, someone cuts into your body, removes an organ, and then has to cauterize or otherwise block numerous blood vessels.

The question is whether or not it is justifiable harm. If your appendix burst or was going to, the harm done by taking it out is far outweighed by the fact that you would have died otherwise.

Heh, to me, ear piercings are worse. At least there is a genuine argument for circumcision offering health benefits and/or making God happy. I have yet to hear anyone even try to argue that being able to wear earrings as a toddler accomplishes either of those.
Ha, true.

And you kinda make that point for me with the braces. My parents had four of my teeth removed so I could have braces; which seems to me like a bigger change than losing a tiny bit of skin. I am okay with this decision, because I think the benefits of getting braces outweighed the loss of those teeth. If a parent genuinely sees the possible health benefits/making God happy as outweighing the loss of a bit of skin, well, I can't quite bring myself to see them as monstrous mutilators. I can disagree and NOT think God really gives a damn about baby penises, or that the health benefits are sufficiently significant to make it worth the loss, but as a society we are largely okay with decisions, even permanent ones, made for children by parents in good faith so long as they don't cause significant harm.

I certainly don't think mutilation really applies to circumcision. But it has no clear cut(*groan*) benefits, and can't easily be undone. A child can just stop wearing the piercings if they decide to. They can't spontaneously grow their foreskin back.

That's not actually very accurate. Quite a lot of parents get their babies' ears pierced, for example. Parents regularly get their kids braces whether the kids like it or not, and not uncommonly have some of their teeth pulled for that purpose. Society is generally accepting of parents choosing to permanently modify their kids' bodies if the modification is seen as fairly small and non-harmful.

One point here - braces are a medical intervention, so I don't think they really belong as an example here.

I would point out that I don't think parents should be have their infant's ears pierced either, though. It's relatively harmless, so I think they can decide to allow it when the child first asks for it, but it shouldn't be done before the child can even think to ask.

I enjoy pain, but I enjoy inflicting it more. He's the bottom. I'm the top.

This topic threatens to derail the thread.

Not if you circumcise him. :)

Not if you circumcise him. :)

He's been beaten to it by the guy's parents.

One point here - braces are a medical intervention, so I don't think they really belong as an example here.

As with circumcision, there are certainly cases where there is a compelling medical reason, but the general justification for braces is to make mouths look prettier. I certainly wasn't ever given any other justification for mine.

He's been beaten to it by the guy's parents.

Nah, he was circumcised for medical reasons.

Nah, he was circumcised for medical reasons.

Kinky. :)

As with circumcision, there are certainly cases where there is a compelling medical reason, but the general justification for braces is to make mouths look prettier. I certainly wasn't ever given any other justification for mine.

A lot of people say they get them to look prettier, but the reason orthodontists suggest them is that straighter teeth don't get as much stuff stuck between them, so you get fewer cavities and things. They're preventative medicine.

As with circumcision, the fact that parents can decide to get them for those medical reasons means we can't really keep them from doing it just because they think it looks better, but I would say the reason for allowing parents to make that decision is medical.

A lot of people say they get them to look prettier, but the reason orthodontists suggest them is that straighter teeth don't get as much stuff stuck between them, so you get fewer cavities and things. They're preventative medicine.

As with circumcision, the fact that parents can decide to get them for those medical reasons means we can't really keep them from doing it just because they think it looks better, but I would say the reason for allowing parents to make that decision is medical.

Fair enough. My argument wasn't that cosmetic reasons SHOULD be enough, anyway, but rather that they often ARE enough for much of society, and that that's not at all exclusive to circumcision. I think there should be an actual medical benefit, too, myself. :)

You can't be serious. It's not like it's some sick satanic ritual.

It's exactly like that, except that there's no harm automatically inherent in satanism, while there is harm inherent in chopping off parts of your children's sex organs.

Satanism and circumcision are not on a level, on that much you're right - but that's because Satanism is a viable religion, and circumcision is barbaric perversion.

Erm, no, not really.



Circumcised penises look and work fine. Claiming that they have been "mutilated" is using silly, over-emotive language. You can absolutely argue that circumcising babies is unnecessary or inappropriate, but I just don't buy "mutilation" by a long shot.

No, 'mutilation' is exactly the right word.

As Kevin Spacey says in Seven, it's commonplace (to us), so it's trivial. If we lived in societies where dissecting perfectly funtional sex organs wasn't common, we'd be collectively horrified by it.

Basically, my point is this - preferring uncircumcised penises is totally valid.

Preferring children with their lips cut off is totally valid... no?

No, 'mutilation' is exactly the right word.

As Kevin Spacey says in Seven, it's commonplace (to us), so it's trivial. If we lived in societies where dissecting perfectly funtional sex organs wasn't common, we'd be collectively horrified by it.

Generally, fictitious serial killers are not considered reputable sources. Try reading my other posts on the subject.

That's not actually very accurate. Quite a lot of parents get their babies' ears pierced, for example.

"That's not very accurate", followed by comparison of pierced ears, to the actual complete removal of part of a child's sex organs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Poli.

Generally, fictitious serial killers are not considered reputable sources. Try reading my other posts on the subject.

generally, reading the post stops you saying things that are so completely nonsensical.

I didn't claim him as a source, I used his phrasing (hence the citation).

"That's not very accurate", followed by comparison of pierced ears, to the actual complete removal of part of a child's sex organs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Poli.

The "complete" removal of "part"? Incoherence, thy name is NTS.

My parents had four of my teeth removed so I could have braces; which seems to me like a bigger change than losing a tiny bit of skin.

'a tiny bit of skin'. I'm assuming your parents didn't have you genitally mutilated as an infant?

Preferring children with their lips cut off is totally valid... no?
As someone who's against circumcision, that analogy makes no sense.

generally, reading the post stops you saying things that are so completely nonsensical.

I didn't claim him as a source, I used his phrasing (hence the citation).

Given that you offered no reason to believe the statement was anything other than a personal opinion beyond "Kevin Spacey said so," I was giving you the credit of assuming you just used a stupid source rather than assuming that you believed you actually had psychic powers to know what society would or would not be horrified by in an alternate universe.

The "complete" removal of "part"? Incoherence, thy name is NTS.

The foreskin is 'part' of the penis. Circumcision is it's 'complete removal'.

It's really not that complex.

'a tiny bit of skin'. I'm assuming your parents didn't have you genitally mutilated as an infant?

I have been... Erm... "Genitally Mutilated" as an infant, and although I oppose it, losing four teeth is a bit bigger change.

As someone who's against circumcision, that analogy makes no sense.

Seriously. For that matter, attacking the statement that it's fine to prefer uncircumcised penises is rather bizarre to begin with. HOW DARE YOU SAY IT'S OKAY TO AGREE WITH ME!!! :p

Preferring children with their lips cut off is totally valid... no?

Well we'd like a child that could do this (http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj31/chazsapphire/lfg0252.gif) would that count?(who later turns out to be undead and have no lips who knew!)

As someone who's against circumcision, that analogy makes no sense.

Poli made a claim about 'preference' for the look of circumcision as being 'totally valid'.

Okay. It's 'valid' to 'prefer' certain types of 'mutilation'. I used the illustration of lips to make my point. 'Preference' is not a good enough reason to slice off parts of your children.

'a tiny bit of skin'. I'm assuming your parents didn't have you genitally mutilated as an infant?

Of course not. We don't live in a culture that supports genital mutilation. They did have my brother circumcised, though. He seems to have survived it.

Poli made a claim about 'preference' for the look of circumcision as being 'totally valid'.

Did I really?

Reading Comprehension: It's Your Friend!

Given that you offered no reason to believe the statement was anything other than a personal opinion beyond "Kevin Spacey said so," I was giving you the credit of assuming you just used a stupid source rather than assuming that you believed you actually had psychic powers to know what society would or would not be horrified by in an alternate universe.

Societies that have relatively common female genital mutialtion tend to not view it (collectively) as horrific in the same way that cultures (like here in the US) where it is (very) uncommon.

It's not hard to draw the conclusion, then - that chopping off parts of an infant penis is only as tolerated and acceptable as it is in our cultures, because it's commonplace.

Poli made a claim about 'preference' for the look of circumcision as being 'totally valid'.
Meaning that preference for the aesthetic or sexual qualities of circumcised penises was valid in itself, not that preference for the aesthetic or sexual qualities of circumcised penises validated circumcision.

I have been... Erm... "Genitally Mutilated" as an infant, and although I oppose it, losing four teeth is a bit bigger change.

Because it's more visible? Is that our rule?

Meaning that preference for the aesthetic or sexual qualities of circumcised penises was valid in itself, not that preference for the aesthetic or sexual qualities of circumcised penises validated circumcision.

Is it 'valid'?

Why is chopping off babies lips not 'valid'?

Seriously. For that matter, attacking the statement that it's fine to prefer uncircumcised penises is rather bizarre to begin with. HOW DARE YOU SAY IT'S OKAY TO AGREE WITH ME!!! :p

It's not bizarre.

You're claiming it's 'valid' to 'prefer' mutilation.

Sure. Everyone has their own tastes. Some people might like the look of babies with no hands. Or their eyes sewn shut.

Societies that have relatively common female genital mutialtion tend to not view it (collectively) as horrific in the same way that cultures (like here in the US) where it is (very) uncommon.

It's not hard to draw the conclusion, then - that chopping off parts of an infant penis is only as tolerated and acceptable as it is in our cultures, because it's commonplace.

except I am not aware of a medical cause for female genital mutilation ever.

Circumcision does have medical need when the foreskin is too tight or during some infections.

Circumcision is closer to having ones tonsils removed rather then treating the infection antibiotics.

Societies that have relatively common female genital mutialtion tend to not view it (collectively) as horrific in the same way that cultures (like here in the US) where it is (very) uncommon.

It's not hard to draw the conclusion, then - that chopping off parts of an infant penis is only as tolerated and acceptable as it is in our cultures, because it's commonplace.

That's true. If you were so colossally ignorant or unintelligent as not to be able to come up with any differences between circumcision and FGM besides "one of them isn't common here," that conclusion wouldn't be hard to draw. Other people might suggest that the part where they are completely different procedures performed for completely different reasons and achieving completely different results should possibly be taken into account, but why listen to such arguments? That's just common sense, and who needs that?

Poli made a claim about 'preference' for the look of circumcision as being 'totally valid'.

She did? I don't remember seeing that. She said that a preference for uncut penises was totally valid.

Now, she also said that circumcised penises look just fine, but that isn't really the same thing. And one could argue that she only thinks circumcised penises look fine because they're common and she's used to them. If circumcision were really uncommon and she had never seen a penis without a foreskin before, I think it would probably be like seeing someone with no earlobes - it would come as a bit of a shock. But that's not the society we live in.

Okay. It's 'valid' to 'prefer' certain types of 'mutilation'. I used the illustration of lips to make my point. 'Preference' is not a good enough reason to slice off parts of your children.

I don't think Poli has argued that it is.

Did I really?


Yes.

"Basically, my point is this - preferring uncircumcised penises is totally valid."

It's not bizarre.

You're claiming it's 'valid' to 'prefer' mutilation.

Sure. Everyone has their own tastes. Some people might like the look of babies with no hands. Or their eyes sewn shut.

Dude, READ. Seriously. It's not that hard.

Yes.

"Basically, my point is this - preferring uncircumcised penises is totally valid."

Are you aware of what the prefix "un-" means?

NTS, you have a bit of foam on the corner of your lips. Might want to get that.

Here, let me help you with this whole reading thing that you seem to suck so much at:

Basically, my point is this - preferring uncircumcised penises is totally valid.

except I am not aware of a medical cause for female genital mutilation ever.

Circumcision does have medical need when the foreskin is too tight or during some infections.

Circumcision is closer to having ones tonsils removed rather then treating the infection antibiotics.

But we're not talking about circumcision for medical reasons, now, are we?

You're doing the equivalent of the abortion argument diversion tactics, where medically necessary abortion is lumped in with 'abortion on demand'.

The topic isn't about circumcisions that are a response to a 'too tight' foreskin... it's about circumcision in response to personal religion and/or (apparently) aesthetic preference.

The same justifications as for female genital mutilation.

Are you aware of what the prefix "un-" means?

Yes. And the fact that you feel you need to justify the 'validity' of an UN-circumcised penis, means you assume that it's taken as read that it's 'valid' to 'prefer' circumcised ones.

except I am not aware of a medical cause for female genital mutilation ever.

At least one of the same arguments for male circumcision are given for a similar procedure in girls - in which the clitoral hood is removed. The claim is that it is more hygeinic. Of course, there haven't really been any studies done on this, largely because (a) it's an uncommon procedure and (b) it's pretty much universally seen as mutilation in the Western world.

Circumcision does have medical need when the foreskin is too tight or during some infections.

Circumcision is closer to having ones tonsils removed rather then treating the infection antibiotics.

In infant circumcision, it's more like having your tonsils removed in case you might possibly maybe get an infection sometime in the future.

NTS, you have a bit of foam on the corner of your lips. Might want to get that.


I don't recall asking for your ad hominem input.

I don't recall asking for your ad hominem input.

I don't recall needing your permission to point out how ignorant you're being.

Dude, READ. Seriously. It's not that hard.

Which avoids the comparisons.

If I say 'it's perfectly valid to prefer babies without their hands cut off', what am I intrinsically also saying?