NationStates Jolt Archive

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

In other words, your contribution is to offer nothing except attacks. You're a troll.

Is it 'valid'?
Preference for the aesthetic look of a certain thing, be it natural or unnatural, is pretty hard to invalidate.

Why is chopping off babies lips not 'valid'?
For obvious reasons; some of which can be included in discussion of male circumcision.

However, Poli isn't discussing (at least, not in the post you quoted) the validity or not of circumcision. She's discussing the validity of finding aesthetic pleasure in a circumcised or uncircumcised penis.

I find aesthetic pleasure in a certain amount of body hair in women. That is a valid aesthetic peccadillo. However, I'm not going to demand that all women shave themselves/refrain from shaving until I find their groins aesthetically pleasing.

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.

*snort*

Man, you're hilarious. Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you weren't paying attention and misread my post rather than concocting such a totally nonsensical attempt at justification?

In other words, your contribution is to offer nothing except attacks. You're a troll.

My contribution is to disabuse you of this assinine notion that Poli is intrinsically saying the exact opposite of what she actually says just because you needed a post to attack.

*snort*

Man, you're hilarious. Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you weren't paying attention and misread my post rather than concocting such a totally nonsensical attempt at justification?

Wouldn't it be easier to admit that you're being intellectually dishonest? I pointed out a parallel example of what is intrinsic in what you've said.

The topic [is] about circumcision in response to personal religion and/or (apparently) aesthetic preference.

The same justifications as for female genital mutilation.
And the same justifications for the wearing of the kippah in Judaism or decorating your living room, respectively.

Yet as these things are different, their justification, though being of a similar nature, does not entail that FGM, male circumcision, the wearing of the kippah and painting your house are all of the same moral stature.

My contribution is to disabuse you of this assinine notion that Poli is intrinsically saying the exact opposite of what she actually says just because you needed a post to attack.

It's a common rhetorical technique - akin to being 'damned with faint praise'.

If I say something like 'it's valid for you to think that black people aren't inferior' - the implication is that they ARE inferior. In suggesting that it's 'valid' to 'prefer' an uncircumcised penis, there is an implicit assurance that the contrary is (already obviously) true.

And the same justifications for the wearing of the kippah in Judaism or decorating your living room, respectively.

Yet as these things are different, their justification, though being of a similar nature, does not entail that FGM, male circumcision, the wearing of the kippah and painting your house are all of the same moral stature.

I don't recall ever suggesting that those things were of the same moral stature.

Wearing a certain piece of ritual clothing, or picking pink wallpaper, are fairly obviously not akin to butchering a child's sex organs.

There is no such clear divide between male gential mutilation and female genital mutilation.

It's a common rhetorical technique - akin to being 'damned with faint praise'.

If I say something like 'it's valid for you to think that black people aren't inferior' - the implication is that they ARE inferior. In suggesting that it's 'valid' to 'prefer' an uncircumcised penis, there is an implicit assurance that the contrary is (already obviously) true.

I am laughing so hard right now.

Do me a favor, and try quoting my ENTIRE post, instead of the one excerpted line, and keep making this argument. I think it'll make it even funnier.

I am laughing so hard right now.


Because genital mutialtion is so funny.

Because genital mutialtion is so funny.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear? I am laughing so hard right now AT YOU. Better? :p

I don't recall ever suggesting that those things were of the same moral stature.
You're saying that the nonconsensual removal of major parts of a female child's sexual organs that has serious consequences for her future sexual pleasure (among other things) is equal to the nonconsensual removal of a minor part of a male child's sexual organs which has dubious consequences that are not adequately documented.

Though I'd argue the two are unacceptable, they are unacceptable for differing measures, or, at the least, on a differing scale.

Equating the two so closely does you no favours.

Moreover, saying male circumcision is unacceptable because of the faith or aesthetic-based arguments involved in rejecting female circumcision is an implicit argument against anything which is grounded in faith or aesthetic-based arguments.

EDIT: To make myself clear, you're arguing not that female circumcision is bad because of its consequences, but because it's justified on faith or aesthetic grounds.

There is no such clear divide between male gential mutilation and female genital mutilation.
To say such a thing betrays a deep misunderstanding of the common procedures used in both cases.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear? I am laughing so hard right now AT YOU. Better? :p

Much better.

An admission that you have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic, and have to resort to debating the other posters? Much better.

You're saying that the nonconsensual removal of major parts of a female child's sexual organs that has serious consequences for her future sexual pleasure (among other things) is equal to the nonconsensual removal of a minor part of a male child's sexual organs which has dubious consequences that are not adequately documented.

Though I'd argue the two are unacceptable, they are unacceptable for differing measures, or, at the least, on a differing scale.

Equating the two so closely does you no favours.


To say such a thing betrays a deep misunderstanding of the common procedures used in both cases.

Female genital mutilation comes in many forms. What unifies them, is the fact that female genitals are mutilated.

The surgeries that split a penis along it's length, or punch holes in a boy's penis - those are male genital mutilation. You can argue about the degree, but the thing they share with circumcision is that they mutilate male genitals.

There is no such clear divide between male gential mutilation and female genital mutilation.

Really? You see "no clear distinction" between the removal of the entire external genitalia - a common version of FGM - and circumcision?

I dunno...if my cock was so small that I honestly couldn't tell the difference between someone removing the foreskin and someone removing the whole thing, I don't think I'd admit that publicly. I almost have to salute your bravery.

All in all: non-consensual circumcision is barbaric and uncivilized. It should be illegal to perform. It should be illegal to seek to procure.

The only circumstances in which non-consensual circumcision should be legitimated, are the same circumstances where other excision surgeries are legitimated - where it is medically necessary. Cosmetic amputation should not be something you can inflict on another for your own personal gratification.

Much better.

An admission that you have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic, and have to resort to debating the other posters? Much better.

Given that you started this "debate" by posting just to whine about how I'm a hypocrite, after several pages of discussion on my part with other posters, you are not exactly making me stop laughing right now.

The surgeries that split a penis along it's length, or punch holes in a boy's penis - those are male genital mutilation. You can argue about the degree, but the thing they share with circumcision is that they mutilate male genitals.

What the hell kind of circumcision is this

Really? You see "no clear distinction" between the removal of the entire external genitalia - a common version of FGM - and circumcision?

I dunno...if my cock was so small that I honestly couldn't tell the difference between someone removing the foreskin and someone removing the whole thing, I don't think I'd admit that publicly. I almost have to salute your bravery.

Again, if ad hominem is all you have, you're hardly a threat - much less in a position to talk.

The similarity between female and male genital mutilation, is the mutilation of genitals. You've contributed nothing to that debate.

Female genital mutilation comes in many forms. What unifies them, is the fact that female genitals are mutilated.

The surgeries that split a penis along it's length, or punch holes in a boy's penis - those are male genital mutilation. You can argue about the degree, but the thing they share with circumcision is that they mutilate male genitals.
Simply because the same words are used, does not mean an argument has been made. Many people would call genital piercings 'mutilation', but this does not show that the same conclusions should be reached when considering female circumcision and genital piercings.

If you wish to equate female and male circumcision as closely as you do, i.e., making no distinction at all, then you need to make an argument showing how the two cause the same problems, and how they are similarly unjustified.

I believe that male circumcision is wrong, or at least highly unnecessary to the point of uselessness, unless medical reasons say otherwise. But I'm not going to try and argue against it in exactly the same way that I would against female circumcision.

Again, if ad hominem is all you have, you're hardly a threat - much less in a position to talk.

The similarity between female and male genital mutilation, is the mutilation of genitals. You've contributed nothing to that debate.

Really, with your username, you'd think you'd have some vague understanding of how logical fallacies work. An ad hominem would be "you have a tiny penis, therefore your argument is invalid." And while that would be kinda funny, you're quite right that it wouldn't be a useful argument. Saying "your argument is ridiculous, because those two things are extraordinarily different, and here is a joke making fun of what a dumb argument you just put forward" is not an ad hominem.

Given that you started this "debate" by posting just to whine about how I'm a hypocrite, after several pages of discussion on my part with other posters, you are not exactly making me stop laughing right now.

Egocentric, much?

You were not the first person in this debate that I addressed.

But then - I didn't even start this debating with you, about hypocrisy (I believe that was my third response to you) - so maybe it's just a lack of attention to detail.

Calm the beans, peeps.

Simply because the same words are used, does not mean an argument has been made. Many people would call genital piercings 'mutilation', but this does not show that the same conclusions should be reached when considering female circumcision and genital piercings.

If you wish to equate female and male circumcision as closely as you do, i.e., making no distinction at all, then you need to make an argument showing how the two cause the same problems, and how they are similarly unjustified.

I believe that male circumcision is wrong, or at least highly unnecessary to the point of uselessness, unless medical reasons say otherwise. But I'm not going to try and argue against it in exactly the same way that I would against female circumcision.

Genital piercings tend to be consensual.

That's the only reason these things are different. If you look at what you're replying to - I specify non-consensual mutilations. I'm quite happy for adults to decide they want to chop up their own genitals, if that's what they feel they need to do.

Explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KXmcNfEFMI

Really, with your username, you'd think you'd have some vague understanding of how logical fallacies work. An ad hominem would be "you have a tiny penis, therefore your argument is invalid." And while that would be kinda funny, you're quite right that it wouldn't be a useful argument. Saying "your argument is ridiculous, because those two things are extraordinarily different, and here is a joke making fun of what a dumb argument you just put forward" is not an ad hominem.

With your username, you'd think you'd have some ideas of how jokes work. A joke would be something that is funny. Saying 'you have a small penis' is just immature. At best. there's no element of surrealism to it, even - so you can't even get the Monty Python humor value.

In contrast, of course, it would be funny if I said you have a small penis.

It is, however, intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that you weren't attempting an ad hominem - you implied that my penis is sufficiently tiny that I can't tell the difference between circumcision and an entire excision, and that that is why my argument is flawed. That is almost textbook ad hominem.

Egocentric, much?

You were not the first person in this debate that I addressed.

But then - I didn't even start this debating with you, about hypocrisy (I believe that was my third response to you) - so maybe it's just a lack of attention to detail.

I am seriously starting to think you are TRYING to crack me up, o ye of the "uncircumcised" = "circumcised." I said "this debate." Not "this thread" or "every debate in this thread" or "your 'contributions' to this thread." This specific debate about how you have imagined that anyone argued that aesthetic reasons were a good justification for circumcision.

Of course, I love how you've just dodged the actual point of my response, which was that it's pretty hilarious for you to complain that I'm not addressing the topic but simply attacking other posters, when you very clearly did exactly that, and spent a couple of pages going on about it despite said other posters having said precisely the opposite of what you were whining about.

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.

My recommendation to you is to study a bit deeper into some of those religions.

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 can't really speak to how important circumcision is/was to the Catholic Church, or even if it's ever been a requisite. The teachers and nuns at the Catholic school I attended weren't much for explaining things in detail.


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

And making moral judgments. That's fraking hilarious.

I said "this debate." Not "this thread" or "every debate in this thread" or "your 'contributions' to this thread."

Ah. I see.

Here's the problem - what you consider 'this debate'... doesn't exist.

You were a hypocrite, and I showed you that. There was no debate. Your ongoing campaign of ad hominem is not a debate, because 'that debate' doesn't exist.

Hence, why I am debating the topic, and you are debating me. It all becomes clear.

I apologize for not making it clear to you that I had no intent of indulging you in your off-topic excursions.

Genital piercings tend to be consensual.
Exactly my point; simply because something can be described as 'mutilation' does not entail that said thing is morally wrong, or that it should be treated in the same manner as another thing that can be described as 'mutilation'.

We need more justification than the above.

That's the only reason these things are different. If you look at what you're replying to - I specify non-consensual mutilations.
Yes, and I think it's disingenuous to equate nonconsensual male and female circumcision quite so closely as you do.

There are, obviously, similarities, and similar arguments can be raised against both. But they are not the same thing in quite important ways; the severity of physical alteration and the chance of destimulation being two examples.

I understand the anger you might feel at male circumcision, but equating it with something it is not does not do your arguments good.

My recommendation to you is to study a bit deeper into some of those religions.


Grab a dictionary. Flip to the word 'irony'. Read it.

With your username, you'd think you'd have some ideas of how jokes work. A joke would be something that is funny. Saying 'you have a small penis' is just immature. At best. there's no element of surrealism to it, even - so you can't even get the Monty Python humor value.

Which would, in fact, be why "you have a small penis" was not the joke. See how that works?

In contrast, of course, it would be funny if I said you have a small penis.

Well, hey, in a sense, I do. A clitoris is kinda like a small penis.

It is, however, intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that you weren't attempting an ad hominem - you implied that my penis is sufficiently tiny that I can't tell the difference between circumcision and an entire excision, and that that is why my argument is flawed. That is almost textbook ad hominem.

No, kiddo. You have your cause and effect reversed. I said that if you genuinely cannot tell the difference between removing your foreskin and removing your entire external genitalia, that would seem to imply that you have an almost impossibly small penis. People with small penises are entirely capable of making valid arguments, and I quite definitely never said anything to the contrary. I rather suspect, anyway, that your genitals are fairly normal-sized, and you are just spouting nonsense about how there is "no clear distinction" between the two for reasons entirely unrelated to the size or lack thereof of your penis.

Grab a dictionary. Flip to the word 'irony'. Read it.

Translation: "No, I'd rather save face."

No problem.

And making moral judgments. That's fraking hilarious.
... Because those in open relationships are incapable of making moral judgements?

Exactly my point; simply because something can be described as 'mutilation' does not entail that said thing is morally wrong, or that it should be treated in the same manner as another thing that can be described as 'mutilation'.


I didn't say it was morally wrong because it can be described as mutilation.

I'm saying it IS mutilation, and that it's morally wrong because you're doing it to non-consenting victims.

If a grown man wants to have the skin chopped from the end of his penis... fair enough. If a grown woman decides she wants to have her labia trimmed? Okie dokes.

But neither of those things should be acceptable, in a civilized society, as acts that you impose on others without their consent.


Yes, and I think it's disingenuous to equate nonconsensual male and female circumcision quite so closely as you do.


They are both gential mutilation, That is the extent of the comparison, because that is all the comparison NEEDS to be.


There are, obviously, similarities, and similar arguments can be raised against both.


Yes, they are both genital mutilation.


But they are not the same thing in quite important ways; the severity of physical alteration and the chance of destimulation being two examples.


Chopping off a hand is still amputation. It doesn't stop being amputation BECAUSE chopping off a whole arm fits the same terminology.


I understand the anger you might feel at male circumcision, but equating it with something it is not does not do your arguments good.

It's not about anger. I'm not angry about it.

People that arbitrarily mutilate their children should be punished, just as they would for any other form of abuse.

Translation: "No, I'd rather save face."

No problem.

No - I probably know more about those religions than you do, by a long way.

If you're arguing that a trinitarian vision of christianity is closer to Judaism, in any way, than Islam - you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

I said that if you genuinely cannot tell the difference between removing your foreskin and removing your entire external genitalia...

Fortunately, that argument has neither been made, nor had any bearing on the debate.

And making moral judgments. That's fraking hilarious.

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Worth bearing in mind.

... Because those in open relationships are incapable of making moral judgements?

It's irrelevant anyway, I'm pretty sure I've made no moral judgements. I'm an amoralist, I can't make moral judgements.

If a grown man wants to have the skin chopped from the end of his penis... fair enough. If a grown woman decides she wants to have her labia trimmed? Okie dokes.

But neither of those things should be acceptable, in a civilized society, as acts that you impose on others without their consent.

And see, that's a reasonable argument. I'm not at all clear on why you couldn't stick with said reasonable argument instead of gibbering about how there is no clear distinction between FGM and circumcision, or how somehow a personal preference for uncircumcised penises is equivalent to justifying chopping off children's lips. Why don't you try sticking with the consent issue, which is a valid concern where you'll get a lot of agreement?

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Worth bearing in mind.

That's only immoral if you view working on the Sabbath as immoral.

They are both gential mutilation, That is the extent of the comparison, because that is all the comparison NEEDS to be.
Not if the comparison includes everything from removing a piece of skin on a sexual organ to removing the entire sexual organ itself.

These differences need to be considered, and there are certain arguments laid for/against the former which cannot be applied to the latter, and vice versa.

Chopping off a hand is still amputation. It doesn't stop being amputation BECAUSE chopping off a whole arm fits the same terminology.
Rather than moving the discussion away to a different part of the body, let's consider the parts of the body we're here to discuss.

Can you honestly see no difference between the complete removal of the clitoris or other external female sexual organs, and the removal of the foreskin?

People that arbitrarily mutilate their children should be punished, just as they would for any other form of abuse.
We are not discussing arbitrary mutilations, we are discussing circumcision (mutilation if you will) following from specific reasoning.

This reasoning may be completely invalid, but it is not arbitrary.

And see, that's a reasonable argument. I'm not at all clear on why you couldn't stick with said reasonable argument


That, perhaps, is where you should have stopped. I'm just saying.


...instead of gibbering


See?

Not constructive.


...about how there is no clear distinction between FGM and circumcision,


There is no clear distinction. The only absolute difference between them is the 'F' in FGM.


...or how somehow a personal preference for uncircumcised penises is equivalent to justifying chopping off children's lips.


Abuse is abuse.


Why don't you try sticking with the consent issue, which is a valid concern where you'll get a lot of agreement?

The consent issue is central... but largely irrelevant when you're talking about newborns. It's obvious that babies aren't consenting to genital mutilation.

Woah, what did just happen to this thread?!:eek:

That's only immoral if you view working on the Sabbath as immoral.

Me, personally? I could give a shit.

Jesus, as Jewish (false)prophet, however...

Fortunately, that argument has neither been made, nor had any bearing on the debate.

Apparently, we need to add "distinction" to the words you have trouble with, along with the prefix "un-" and "ad hominem." "Distinction" is a synonym of "difference." The fact that I used the latter word instead of the former does not actually make it a whole new argument.

Abuse is abuse.

Please explain how someone personally preferring uncircumcised penises is abuse. Hell, explain how someone personally preferring circumcised penises is abuse, too, if you like.


The consent issue is central... but largely irrelevant when you're talking about newborns. It's obvious that babies aren't consenting to genital mutilation.

I am trying to wrap my brain around the concept of "central, but irrelevant." Could you try that one again?

Not if the comparison includes everything from removing a piece of skin on a sexual organ to removing the entire sexual organ itself.

These differences need to be considered, and there are certain arguments laid for/against the former which cannot be applied to the latter, and vice versa.


While it is true that there are specific arguments that can be applied to each - the same two arguments of 'mutilation' and 'non-consenting' are equally applicable to both.


Rather than moving the discussion away to a different part of the body, let's consider the parts of the body we're here to discuss.


But it's important. The argument that circumcision is 'different to gential mutilation', based around arguments of scale is easily displayed as nonsensical by examining whether amputation of a hand is 'amputation', or only amputation of the whole arm.


Can you honestly see no difference between the complete removal of the clitoris or other external female sexual organs, and the removal of the foreskin?


I can see a difference in extent, obviously. But both are mutilations. And neither has a place in a civilized society.


We are not discussing arbitrary mutilations, we are discussing circumcision (mutilation if you will) following from specific reasoning.

This reasoning may be completely invalid, but it is not arbitrary.

Surgery is either 'medical', or it's arbitrary.

If it's medically required, okay. Your religion is not a good mitigation for inflicting abuses on your children.

Me, personally? I could give a shit.

Jesus, as Jewish (false)prophet, however...

First, you assume Jesus believed in the "Old Testament", as we now call it, as the absolute truth. If you believe he knew everything and was, in essence, God, then he would know what to and what not to follow.

Please explain how someone personally preferring uncircumcised penises is abuse. Hell, explain how someone personally preferring circumcised penises is abuse, too, if you like.


Okay - you've invoked preference before, which suggests that you're arguing preference is the justification... but you also seem to be suggesting that's not so - so I'm really not saure what you consider your argument to be.

Cutting bits off children is abuse. That's what I was talking about... not your 'preferences', either way.


I am trying to wrap my brain around the concept of "central, but irrelevant." Could you try that one again?

It's a central argument. But babies cannot consent. So - the whole consent argument is automatic (i.e. it's wrong because it's automatically nonconsensual), but babies aren't 'consenting' to crapping in their diapers, or suckling, either - so there has to be a distinction between which things NEED consent, and which ones don't.

Eating breakfast and having bits of your todger lopped off? Those really are different things.

First, you assume Jesus believed in the "Old Testament", as we now call it, as the absolute truth. If you believe he knew everything and was, in essence, God, then he would know what to and what not to follow.

You're kinda wandering off down an irrelevant road, here.

Someone was suggesting another poster - who has 'non-conventional' relationships - can't make 'moral judgements'... because of those relationships.

The implication is that - if you're not following the conventional 'moral' path yourself in one aspect of life, you apparently have nothing to say about any moral issue.

Obviously, Jesus' failure to obhserve the Sabbath is worth consideration in that light.

You're kinda wandering off down an irrelevant road, here.

Such is the story of NSG.:D

But yeah, you're right in this matter, this is irrelevant, and a bit of a thread jack. *wanders off, having nothing more to say on the matter of circumcision*

First, you assume Jesus believed in the "Old Testament", as we now call it, as the absolute truth. If you believe he knew everything and was, in essence, God, then he would know what to and what not to follow.

God's son, and he said that he came to fulfill the law, so it was done away with.

Also, the Jews of that time had adopted an oral law in addition to the Torah which was far more restrictive than the original law. The definition of "work" was not specifically defined in the original Torah.

God's son, and he said that he came to fulfill the law, so it was done away with.

But if you believe in the trinity of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit, as I do (And I was only using it to make a point of what I believe), then all three would be more or less the same. And yeah, I agree with the second part.

Also, the Jews of that time had adopted an oral law in addition to the Torah which was far more restrictive than the original law. The definition of "work" was not specifically defined in the original Torah.
Eh, this too.:p

While it is true that there are specific arguments that can be applied to each - the same two arguments of 'mutilation' and 'non-consenting' are equally applicable to both.

No. "Non-consenting" is equally applicable. "Mutilation" is not, because one of them causes obvious and indisputable damage, and the other doesn't. As I explained earlier in the bit of my post that you snipped to focus on how terrible preferring uncircumcised penises was, there is no conclusive evidence that either circumcised or uncircumcised penises are more functional or in any way objectively "better." There is completely undisputed and quite obvious evidence that having your entire external genitalia removed renders said genitalia less functional.


But it's important. The argument that circumcision is 'different to gential mutilation', based around arguments of scale is easily displayed as nonsensical by examining whether amputation of a hand is 'amputation', or only amputation of the whole arm.

No, it's not. Amputation and mutilation are both words with specific meanings. Amputation just means "removal of an extremity." Any removal of an extremity fits that definition. "Mutilation" requires damage, and in common parlance, fairly severe damage. People do not typically refer to a paper-cut as a "mutilation." By your argument, they should, because it's just a difference of scale between that and, say, slicing someone's cheeks completely open from ear to ear.

Surgery is either 'medical', or it's arbitrary.

If it's medically required, okay. Your religion is not a good mitigation for inflicting abuses on your children.

First, "medical" is not the same as "medically required." Second, while religion may very well not be a good justification, it's still not "arbitrary," because there is still specific reasoning behind it. You can certainly disagree with that reasoning, but it doesn't make it cease to be reasoning.

But if you believe in the trinity of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit, as I do (And I was only using it to make a point of what I believe), then all three would be more or less the same. And yeah, I agree with the second part.

Eh, this too.:p

All this yapping has made me so hungry. Damn you all and your talk about man-meat... *cough* ... I mean... penis.:$

But if you believe in the trinity of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit, as I do (And I was only using it to make a point of what I believe), then all three would be more or less the same. And yeah, I agree with the second part.

Of course, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God, nor do any of the writings by the apostles after Jesus. In fact, he made a point of saying that God was greater than he was.

Of course, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God, nor do any of the writings by the apostles after Jesus. In fact, he made a point of saying that God was greater than he was.
Indeed, but I believe this insofar as Jesus was in a human form at the time. But let's bring this to another thread, shall we?

All this yapping has made me so hungry. Damn you all and your talk about man-meat... *cough* ... I mean... penis.:$
Divine sex? Kinky.:wink: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLVlvpuh9FM)

Indeed, but I believe this insofar as Jesus was in a human form at the time. But let's bring this to another thread, shall we?

Perhaps we should.

Although it's very NSG for a thread about circumcision to go off topic, through the woods, and start talking about the divinity of Jesus.

Most doctors and medical organizations say that circumcision has no measurable health benefits. If we assume this is true why did you (or why would you) get your son circumsized? Has anyone answered this question?

Divine sex? Kinky.:wink: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLVlvpuh9FM)

That be me name, laddie.:wink:

That be me name, laddie.:wink:
:tongue:

While it is true that there are specific arguments that can be applied to each - the same two arguments of 'mutilation' and 'non-consenting' are equally applicable to both.
I'd agree with the latter, but perhaps not the former, insofar as it equates the two.

The argument that circumcision is 'different to gential mutilation', based around arguments of scale is easily displayed as nonsensical by examining whether amputation of a hand is 'amputation', or only amputation of the whole arm.
Yet I'm not arguing against the comparison based on scale, but based on what the two procedures 'acheive'. As much as I dislike the notion of the nonconsensual, nonmedical removal of the foreskin, it's a different kettle of fish to that of nonconsensual, nonmedical removal of the clitoris, for example.

Surgery is either 'medical', or it's arbitrary.
Though I imagine disagreemnet here stems from a differing conception of 'arbitrary' (I take the word here to mean, 'completely without justification, no matter how valid that justification'), I'd point to plastic surgery as a nonmedical, yet nonarbitrary, surgery.

If it's medically required, okay. Your religion is not a good mitigation for inflicting abuses on your children.
No, but it is a reason, i.e., it isn't arbitrary.

Most doctors and medical organizations say that circumcision has no measurable health benefits. If we assume this is true why did you (or why would you) get your son circumsized? Has anyone answered this question?

Well, my father told me that he got me circumcised because the doctor at the time told him it would greatly reduce my chances of getting cancer later on, so that's why he did it.

Okay - you've invoked preference before, which suggests that you're arguing preference is the justification... but you also seem to be suggesting that's not so - so I'm really not saure what you consider your argument to be.

Cutting bits off children is abuse. That's what I was talking about... not your 'preferences', either way.

Thank you for finally sort of admitting that I never argued that personal preference was a justification for circumcision. If you'll go back and reread when not spoiling for a fight, you'll see that I addressed personal preference in response to someone arguing that uncircumcised penises were superior, and specifically stated that personal preference was NOT proof of the superiority of either state.

It's a central argument. But babies cannot consent. So - the whole consent argument is automatic (i.e. it's wrong because it's automatically nonconsensual), but babies aren't 'consenting' to crapping in their diapers, or suckling, either - so there has to be a distinction between which things NEED consent, and which ones don't.

Eating breakfast and having bits of your todger lopped off? Those really are different things.

As you point out, we are fine with parents doing a great many things to babies without their consent. My friends' baby Jack has been known to scream bloody murder when his parents put his fuzzy hat on him, but we recognize that he is a baby and doesn't understand that having his ears exposed to the cold air could harm him, so we trust that his parents are looking out for his best interests. They got him circumcised because his mother, who is a doctor, researched the subject and concluded that it was better for his health. I don't think he screamed any more about it than he does about the fuzzy hat. The critical distinction between those two things is not that one is evil or arbitrary or abuse, but rather that one is permanent. That's why consent matters - because when Jack is old enough to consent to things, he will no longer have to wear his fuzzy hat. He will still be circumcised. We're not really addressing the issue of taking consent away from a baby. We're addressing the issue of taking it away from an adult, 18 years earlier.

Woah, what did just happen to this thread?!:eek:
I have to say, I was wondering the same thing!

... Because those in open relationships are incapable of making moral judgements?

None that I'd take seriously.

No - I probably know more about those religions than you do, by a long way.

Uh, sure. No doubt your extensive knowledge of my own religious knowledge is impressive and leads you to this conclusion.

Or maybe you're just talking our of your ass. Either way is fine I'm sure.


If you're arguing that a trinitarian vision of christianity is closer to Judaism, in any way, than Islam - you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

I haven't said a word about trinitarianism. That was your assumption.

Putting words in my mouth there, Sport.

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Worth bearing in mind.

Ah yes the comparison between that and multiple gay partners is obvious.

Yet I'm not arguing against the comparison based on scale, but based on what the two procedures 'acheive'. As much as I dislike the notion of the nonconsensual, nonmedical removal of the foreskin, it's a different kettle of fish to that of nonconsensual, nonmedical removal of the clitoris, for example.


But how does it compare to removal of the clitoral hood, or the excision of the labia?

The 'comparison argument' seems to be mainly constested by the 'contradiction argument'... i.e. I say that male gential mutilation (like circumcision) is like female genital mutilation - and in order to argue against it - you don't look for a like SCALE.


Though I imagine disagreemnet here stems from a differing conception of 'arbitrary' (I take the word here to mean, 'completely without justification, no matter how valid that justification'), I'd point to plastic surgery as a nonmedical, yet nonarbitrary, surgery.


Ignoring the semantics - if it's not medically necessary (and I'm willing to accept quite a spectrum of medical necessity), how is it not arbitrary?

Ah yes the comparison between that and multiple gay partners is obvious.

Jesus had twelve gay partners, no? He was even more deviant than I am!

As you point out, we are fine with parents doing a great many things to babies without their consent. My friends' baby Jack has been known to scream bloody murder when his parents put his fuzzy hat on him, but we recognize that he is a baby and doesn't understand that having his ears exposed to the cold air could harm him, so we trust that his parents are looking out for his best interests. They got him circumcised because his mother, who is a doctor, researched the subject and concluded that it was better for his health. I don't think he screamed any more about it than he does about the fuzzy hat. The critical distinction between those two things is not that one is evil or arbitrary or abuse, but rather that one is permanent. That's why consent matters - because when Jack is old enough to consent to things, he will no longer have to wear his fuzzy hat. He will still be circumcised. We're not really addressing the issue of taking consent away from a baby. We're addressing the issue of taking it away from an adult, 18 years earlier.

Seriously? Fuzzy hat and genital mutilation are equal? (Except, you're willing to concede, in duration).

It is abuse.

You carefully don't address the parallels, because you know you'd have to concede it's abuse. Chopping bits off babies (for no medical reason) should be illegal, like other forms of abuse, because it's abuse.

\You carefully don't address the parallels, because you know you'd have to concede it's abuse. Chopping bits off babies (for no medical reason) should be illegal, like other forms of abuse, because it's abuse.

We aren't allowed to trim their fingernails or toenails or cut their hair?

Damn... parenting is going to be harder than I thought.

Jesus had twelve gay partners, no? He was even more deviant than I am!

No, no, no. Jesus was the ultimate Hippy. He went around telling stories and talking about peace and love, didn't live in one place for any amount of time, and liked to travel around with a bunch of guys who wore long robes and sandals.:wink:

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.



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

That is exactly what I equate male circumcision to.

I posted a lot of stuff in a thread about this years ago. There are different types of female circumcision but most only think of the complete removal of clit and lips or closing of the opening .. but not the removal of the hood .. which is another type and is basically the exact same procedure as the common male circumcision. I'm certain those that feel the removing of the foreskin of male babies is A-OK wouldn't feel that same about removing the female foreskin.

This topic brings up strong feelings in me and I'm not sure why. I'm a female who hasn't been circumcised .. I have no kids. But it really angers me lol. I disagree with male circumcision very strongly.

Seriously? Fuzzy hat and genital mutilation are equal? (Except, you're willing to concede, in duration).

It is abuse.

You carefully don't address the parallels, because you know you'd have to concede it's abuse. Chopping bits off babies (for no medical reason) should be illegal, like other forms of abuse, because it's abuse.

Do you also believe it should be illegal to pierce ears prior to a certain age? and what age is appropriate?

We aren't allowed to trim their fingernails or toenails or cut their hair?

Damn... parenting is going to be harder than I thought.

Look on the bright side... it helps to keep them from sucking their thumb...

We aren't allowed to trim their fingernails or toenails or cut their hair?

Damn... parenting is going to be harder than I thought.

Sarcastic assh- *gets shot*

Uh, sure. No doubt your extensive knowledge of my own religious knowledge is impressive and leads you to this conclusion.


No, I based my assessment on what you've actually said.

If what comes out of your mouth isn't representative of what lies behind it, that's hardly my failing.


I haven't said a word about trinitarianism. That was your assumption.

Putting words in my mouth there, Sport.


Ah. Perhaps you meant Catholics that don't believe that Jesus is man and god? Those catholics?


Ah yes the comparison between that and multiple gay partners is obvious.

Ignoring the 'Jesus was gay' and 'David was gay' arguments - someone failing to meet up to YOUR expectations of 'morality' is shown to be nonsensical, when the basis of that morality is... someone who failed to meet up to expectations of morality.

Look on the bright side... it helps to keep them from sucking their thumb...

The hitting phase is going to be hell, though.

We aren't allowed to trim their fingernails or toenails or cut their hair?

Damn... parenting is going to be harder than I thought.

Fingernails, toenails and hair all regrow. It probably is best that you know at least this much before you think too much about starting a family.

Fingernails, toenails and hair all regrow. It probably is best that you know at least this much before you think too much about starting a family.

I'm aware of that, but you said we can't cut bits off of babies. That would include fingernails, toenails, and hair.

But how does it compare to removal of the clitoral hood, or the excision of the labia?

The 'comparison argument' seems to be mainly constested by the 'contradiction argument'... i.e. I say that male gential mutilation (like circumcision) is like female genital mutilation - and in order to argue against it - you don't look for a like SCALE.

Again, yes, you kinda do. Otherwise you end up at the "a paper-cut is not different in any meaningful way from slicing your face open from ear to ear" argument, and you're just not going to be able to rationally justify that position. Beyond scale, though, you furthermore look for like RESULTS. Women who have undergone FSM often experience excruciating pain for the rest of their lives. Men who have undergone circumcision...don't. Women who have undergone FSM often can no longer get any pleasure from intercourse. Men who have undergone circumcision...do. Many of them even claim to enjoy it more. And, of course, you look for like MOTIVATION. The explicit motive behind FSM is not infrequently "make sure she can't enjoy sex, so she will never cheat on her future spouse." This bears no resemblance to the motive for circumcision, which tends to be either "so God will see that he's one of the chosen people" or "to improve his future health." You can think those are bad reasons, but they're still not the same reasons.


Ignoring the semantics - if it's not medically necessary (and I'm willing to accept quite a spectrum of medical necessity), how is it not arbitrary?

....because it's not. Braces are almost certainly not medically necessary. You
don't hear of kids dying for lack of braces. They still have a specific intended purpose and a specific reasoning behind them.

Do you also believe it should be illegal to pierce ears prior to a certain age? and what age is appropriate?

I wouldn't have a child's ears pierced before a reasonable age, if not the age of majority. (Personally).

But then, piercing and excision are far less similar than excisions and excisions.

I'm aware of that, but you said we can't cut bits off of babies. That would include fingernails, toenails, and hair.

If you were suggesting cutting off their fingers, you'd have a point.

If you were suggesting cutting off their fingers, you'd have a point.

No, I'm cherrypicking one thing out of your argument that you said, and attacking it because I can. Now, if you recall, somebody else in this thread did that very same thing just a couple pages back.

None that I'd take seriously.
I fail to see how being in a consensual sexual relationship makes one unable to espouse seriously on moral topics, but this is a discussion for another thread.


The 'comparison argument' seems to be mainly constested by the 'contradiction argument'... i.e. I say that male gential mutilation (like circumcision) is like female genital mutilation - and in order to argue against it - you don't look for a like SCALE.
On the contrary, I feel you misrepresent what either male or female circumcision is to fit the other as equatable.

As I've repeatedly said, there are valid arguments against nonconsensual male circumcision. Pointing to the brutality of female circumcision and trying to make a comparison isn't one of them.

Ignoring the semantics - if it's not medically necessary (and I'm willing to accept quite a spectrum of medical necessity), how is it not arbitrary?
Because I don't think we're limited to a choice between 'medically necessary' and 'arbitrary'.

Take Robert Downey Jr.'s character in Tropic Thunder. He has a surgical procedure, pigmentation of his skin so as to appear black, that is neither medically necessary, nor arbitrary and based on nothing but whim.

Similarly, we can identify surgeries that are not medically necessary nor arbitrary; breast augmentation/reduction might, for example, dramatically boost the confidence of a certain woman.

Again, yes, you kinda do. Otherwise you end up at the "a paper-cut is not different in any meaningful way from slicing your face open from ear to ear" argument, and you're just not going to be able to rationally justify that position. Beyond scale, though, you furthermore look for like RESULTS. Women who have undergone FSM often experience excruciating pain for the rest of their lives. Men who have undergone circumcision...don't. Women who have undergone FSM often can no longer get any pleasure from intercourse. Men who have undergone circumcision...do. Many of them even claim to enjoy it more. And, of course, you look for like MOTIVATION. The explicit motive behind FSM is not infrequently "make sure she can't enjoy sex, so she will never cheat on her future spouse." This bears no resemblance to the motive for circumcision, which tends to be either "so God will see that he's one of the chosen people" or "to improve his future health." You can think those are bad reasons, but they're still not the same reasons.

....because it's not. Braces are almost certainly not medically necessary. You
don't hear of kids dying for lack of braces. They still have a specific intended purpose and a specific reasoning behind them.

1) FSM? um...

2) 'not dying of' =/= not medically necessary

3) the 'god likes chopped cocks' argument is a cover story. The purpose behind the myth is to reduce auto-erotic behaviour. So - to reduce sexual pleasure.

4) I don't care about 'motivation'. If it's not medical, you shouldn't be able to amputate parts of babies.

....because it's not. Braces are almost certainly not medically necessary. You
don't hear of kids dying for lack of braces. They still have a specific intended purpose and a specific reasoning behind them.

Do you mean: So that the child will look attractive and have an easier time fitting into society?

Do you support male circumcision because of 'peer pressure' more or less?

If you lived somewhere that circumcision was uncommon would you be less likely to get your (real or imaginary) son circumsized than if you lived in USA?

No, I'm cherrypicking one thing out of your argument that you said, and attacking it because I can. Now, if you recall, somebody else in this thread did that very same thing just a couple pages back.

I have no interest in your games.

I have no interest in your games.

In that case, say it's ok to chop certain bits off babies, and I'll call it a day and you can resume comparing chipping a brick with a chisel to detonating a skyscraper.

On the contrary, I feel you misrepresent what either male or female circumcision is to fit the other as equatable.

As I've repeatedly said, there are valid arguments against nonconsensual male circumcision. Pointing to the brutality of female circumcision and trying to make a comparison isn't one of them.


I didn't 'point to the brutality' of FGM.

FGM is genital mutilation. Circumcision is genital mutilation. The big difference, definitively, is the 'F'.


Because I don't think we're limited to a choice between 'medically necessary' and 'arbitrary'.


For the sake of the lines I drew up, we are. If it's not medical, it's arbitrary.


Take Robert Downey Jr.'s character in Tropic Thunder. He has a surgical procedure, pigmentation of his skin so as to appear black, that is neither medically necessary, nor arbitrary and based on nothing but whim.


According to the parameters, that would be 'arbitrary'.

I really think this is just semantic (which I said to avoid)... but if that's the deal, then trot out a word that fits better than arbitrary, and we'll see if we can work it with that.


Similarly, we can identify surgeries that are not medically necessary nor arbitrary; breast augmentation/reduction might, for example, dramatically boost the confidence of a certain woman.

Which would be arguable as 'medical'.

Seriously? Fuzzy hat and genital mutilation are equal? (Except, you're willing to concede, in duration).

In their effect on baby Jack? Yes, they are equal. They both made him scream for half an hour, and then he forgot about them.

I love this "willing to concede" bullshit, as if you had somehow argued against my point before I brought it up. Will you PLEASE try reading my actual stated position on the issue instead of continuing to pretend that I'm some sort of rabid circumcision fan?

It is abuse.

You carefully don't address the parallels, because you know you'd have to concede it's abuse. Chopping bits off babies (for no medical reason) should be illegal, like other forms of abuse, because it's abuse.

And, see, this is why (well, one of many reasons why) it's hard to take your argument seriously, and you do a real disservice to the intelligent people arguing against circumcision. You not only seem to have no ability to read what people actually say instead of what you would like to imagine they said, but you also make these ridiculous hyperbole-laden statements that insult the hell out of victims of real abuse, as well as the many good, caring parents who chose the procedure because they believe it is best for their child's health. Is it really so hard to come up with cogent arguments as to why they should not have made such a choice, rather than continuing to insist that an extremely minor medical procedure is the same as chopping off someone's entire external genitalia or deliberately causing them harm for harm's sake? I just tried to offer you a good argument against circumcision, for heaven's sake, and you appear to be so determined to attack anything I say that you're going after it with the same misguided vigor that led you to get so upset about my horrible hypocrisy in saying it was okay to like uncut cocks. Good GRIEF.

In that case, say it's ok to chop certain bits off babies, and I'll call it a day and you can resume comparing chipping a brick with a chisel to detonating a skyscraper.

But we're not talking about 'chipping a brick', are we - we're talking about lifting off the whole top floor of the building, including all the protection, and 90% of the technology that defnies the functionality of that building.

You can argue that levelling the skyscraper, and lopping it's top floors of are different SCALE, but you can't really deny that both are demolition.

Your example is the equivalent of changing the roofing tiles, or taking out a window.

Even allegorically, you're failing... and in more ways than one, since you're quibbling semantics, rather than actually contributing to the serious subject of the debate.

But we're not talking about 'chipping a brick', are we - we're talking about lifting off the whole top floor of the building, including all the protection, and 90% of the technology that defnies the functionality of that building.

Really? The interior of the penis is damaged by the elements due to the circumcision? The penis is only 10% functional after circumcision?? I wish I hadn't been circumcised... :(

You can argue that levelling the skyscraper, and lopping it's top floors of are different SCALE, but you can't really deny that both are demolition.

The penis still works. It's not demolition. If anything, it's more like a renovation, or at worst, knocking down a room and sealing up the wall where the room entrance used to be.

Your example is the equivalent of changing the roofing tiles, or taking out a window.

What? How did we get to roofing tiles?

Even allegorically, you're failing... and in more ways than one, since you're quibbling semantics, rather than actually contributing to the serious subject of the debate.

This debating being serious went out the window a long time ago. There are plenty of arguments against circumcision, but you won't even entertain them. Heck, Poli handed you one, a good one, and you just attacked her.

Sad.

This debating being serious went out the window a long time ago. There are plenty of arguments against circumcision, but you won't even entertain them. Heck, Poli handed you one, a good one, and you just attacked her.

Sad.

Not only sad, this thread went from the sublime to the ridiculous with this last debate. After the Prince Albert reference that was pretty much it. But when Poli fired a good point, all we got was loaded guns from one poster. Truly disappointing.

Holy sweet fuck, I can't believe how big this thread got. *starts reading back at page 9*

1) FSM? um...

Heh. There's the problem with typing while distracted by another conversation. :p

2) 'not dying of' =/= not medically necessary

...what do you think "necessary" means?

3) the 'god likes chopped cocks' argument is a cover story. The purpose behind the myth is to reduce auto-erotic behaviour. So - to reduce sexual pleasure.

That's nonsense. It might be SOME parents' motivation, I suppose, but given that there is no evidence suggesting that circumcised men don't enjoy masturbating as much as uncircumcised men, they would have to be pretty stupid parents. I dated a Jewish guy for several years, and it was very important to him that his kids be brought up within his faith, which included circumcising the boys. He also fully intended to buy his sons porn when they turned 10 or 11, because he thought masturbation was a fun and important part of adolescence.

4) I don't care about 'motivation'. If it's not medical, you shouldn't be able to amputate parts of babies.

You don't care about motivation? So, say, you think it's exactly as bad to spank your child because he was running into the road and you desperately want him to get the point that he CANNOT do that, and to spank your child because you hate the little fucker and hope he suffers?

I also don't see how the second sentence relates to the first. "Medical reasons" is a motivation, obviously, so apparently you DO care about motivation?

Holy sweet fuck, I can't believe how big this thread got. *starts reading back at page 9*

It stopped being interesting about page 15.

In their effect on baby Jack? Yes, they are equal. They both made him scream for half an hour, and then he forgot about them.


No, they are not equal. If you shoved a corkscrew into him he'd scream for half an hour and then forget it. He's a baby.

That's not a valid definition of equality.


And, see, this is why (well, one of many reasons why) it's hard to take your argument seriously, and you do a real disservice to the intelligent people arguing against circumcision.


The irony of saying that, in the context of the earlier comment...


...hyperbole-laden statements that insult the hell out of victims of real abuse,


Ah. No True Abuse-victim?

Girls talking about how they were victims of sexual violence are doing disservice to 'real rape victims'. Right?


...as well as the many good, caring parents who chose the procedure because they believe it is best for their child's health.


If they have their children circumcised, they can't be good, caring parents.

If they were good, caring parents, they wouldn't genitally mutilate their children.


Is it really so hard to come up with cogent arguments as to why they should not have made such a choice,


No. I've made several such arguments.


...rather than continuing to insist that an extremely minor medical procedure is the same as chopping off someone's entire external genitalia


Again, the pretence that scale negates similarity.

Not all FGM involves 'someone's entire genitalia', but you always run straight to that extreme to justify why you can argue the two things as dissimilar.


...or deliberately causing them harm for harm's sake...


That's what circumcision is.

Do you also believe it should be illegal to pierce ears prior to a certain age? and what age is appropriate?
As I've stated earlier in the thread, piercing is assault with consent.
So, whoever wants to take a needle to whichever place should be pierced needs the consent of your parents or of you as an adult since as a kid you cannot legally make an informed decision.
Fingernails, toenails and hair all regrow. It probably is best that you know at least this much before you think too much about starting a family.
Even if hair grows back - cutting someone's hair without their consent is treated as assault here. (Don't think any kid has sued their parents for taking them to the hairdresser's, but that's how the law is here. Shaving someone as a prank could cost you dearly!)

FGM is genital mutilation. Circumcision is genital mutilation. The big difference, definitively, is the 'F'.
As we have discussed, this is Not A Valid Argument.

I can just as easily say, "FGM is genital mutilation. Genital piercing is genital mutilation. The big difference, definitively, is the 'F'". Your argument and my argument are exactly the same.

Argue about consent, argue about health, argue about sexual stimulation, but don't try and argue that because one thing is described in the same way as another thing, the two things should be treated the same.

For the sake of the lines I drew up, we are.
I would question your authority to draw said lines, especially if these parameters cannot handle the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'.


Chopping bits off babies (for no medical reason) should be illegal, like other forms of abuse, because it's abuse.

...

Girls talking about how they were victims of sexual violence are doing disservice to 'real rape victims'. Right?

...

If they have their children circumcised, they can't be good, caring parents.

If they were good, caring parents, they wouldn't genitally mutilate their children.
Have you nothing but strawmen and axioms?

Where's your arguments, sir? We know you think male circumcision is mutilation.

It stopped being interesting about page 15.

I dunno, I found the claim that my opinions (on anything, apparently) are without merit, ipso facto, simply because of my relationship arrangements quite interesting.

I dunno, I found the claim that my opinions (on anything, apparently) are without merit, ipso facto, simply because of my relationship arrangements quite interesting.

True, that was interesting. That was what, page 17? So, anyway, that was the last interesting thing.

You don't care about motivation? So, say, you think it's exactly as bad to spank your child because he was running into the road and you desperately want him to get the point that he CANNOT do that, and to spank your child because you hate the little fucker and hope he suffers?


There's a thing called a 'topic'. It's not uncommon for people debating a topic, to focus their content on that context.

In this case, the 'topic' would the form of genital mutilation called 'circumcision'.

So - when I say "I don't care about motivation', that is about the motivation for circumcision.

If I meant something else... like the motivation for... eating sandwiches, or say, spanking... I'd probably have said.


I also don't see how the second sentence relates to the first. "Medical reasons" is a motivation, obviously, so apparently you DO care about motivation?

Once again, I think you're far too interested in teh semantics, rather than the point.

True, that was interesting. That was what, page 17? So, anyway, that was the last interesting thing.

I'm hoping he'll attempt to justify that, and that'll provide something else interesting.

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

I have never heard of it happening (being a Catholic and all) but that doesn't mean that is used to be like that.

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.

Of course the fact that Catholicism came out of Judaism has nothing what so ever to do with it.

If they have their children circumcised, they can't be good, caring parents.

If they were good, caring parents, they wouldn't genitally mutilate their children.

I don't agree with this. There are so many myths out there and ill-informed/old school doctors who will tell parents that there are huge health benefits to getting a baby circumsized.
Parents who opt for circumsicion think they are doing the right thing.

Either way, the kid's hypothetical father would have at least as big a say as I did, if not more.

Why would the father have more say? I can understand equal say, with the caveat I'm about to explain...but not more, just because daddy has a penis too. Is there another reason?

My caveat to equal say is this...when it comes to making permanent physical changes to a child that are not absolutely medically necessary...the parent firmly AGAINST said modification should win that argument. As was said before...it's easy enough to do it later...not so much if you want that foreskin back.

Were I to have a child with someone whose religion insisted on circumcision...well no just scrap that, because it wouldn't happen.

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. It should be illegal? Should piercing a baby's ears be illegal too?

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. Liked? Why'd you get it taken off?

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.
Circumcised penii might work and 'look' just fine, but how much of that is because we're used to uncircumcised penises in the US and Canada? I know a lot of women who think uncircumcised penises are ugly (fools), so it's not just 'looks' that determine mutilation.

Merriam Webster:

mutilate

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple


Making something 'imperfect' is really going to be a social norm. Nose rings probably made people look imperfect here in Canada and the US until people got more used to them. I'm not saying that it's actually mutilation despite the title of this thread...mutilation hints at (as was stated by someone else) motive. Or something icky. Anyway, don't think the look is the issue...the permanence of the procedure would lend itself to the definition. A pierced nose or ear can grow in...you can't grow back your foreskin. You know, without rubbing embryos on your penis.

I'm hoping he'll attempt to justify that, and that'll provide something else interesting.

I thought, but you're welcome to correct me if I am wrong, that as a self-proclaimed sociopath, you didn't care much about what others thought of you and the way you thought. Am I right? If so, do you truly need NTSM to justify his points to you?

As we have discussed, this is Not A Valid Argument.

I can just as easily say, "FGM is genital mutilation. Genital piercing is genital mutilation. The big difference, definitively, is the 'F'". Your argument and my argument are exactly the same.

Argue about consent, argue about health, argue about sexual stimulation, but don't try and argue that because one thing is described in the same way as another thing, the two things should be treated the same.


I didn't make that argument. You seem to want me to have, but I didn't.

I describe them in the same way because they are both genital mutilation.

The reason you shouldn't be able to do it ISN'T because it's genital mutilation... I believe you should be able to genitally mutilate YOURSELF if you want - and i've said so a number of times.

It is gential mutilation, and genital mutilation without consent should be illegal.


I would question your authority to draw said lines, especially if these parameters cannot handle the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'.

The lines are drawn for the sake of debate. I could have gone for the real easy option and defined the sides as 'medical' and 'non-medical', I suppose. But again - you're quibbling the semantics of the word, which is not relevant.

Of course the fact that Catholicism came out of Judaism has nothing what so ever to do with it.

Catholicism didn't come out of Judaism.

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.

$2000!? Holy shit! Last I heard, it was $250 here, but I haven't checked in a while. Wow. Icky.

I thought, but you're welcome to correct me if I am wrong, that as a self-proclaimed sociopath, you didn't care much about what others thought of you and the way you thought. Am I right? If so, do you truly need NTSM to justify his points to you?

Not me. I was the one saying the arguments were nonsense.

(Not important, though. Your point wasn't about me (or Neo, who actually said it) but about the perception of conflict for Getbrett.)

I thought, but you're welcome to correct me if I am wrong, that as a self-proclaimed sociopath, you didn't care much about what others thought of you and the way you thought. Am I right? If so, do you truly need NTSM to justify his points to you?

I don't need justification, but it'd be entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics he'd need to go through to relate my sexual arrangements to my opinions on circumcision.

EDIT: Also, this isn't about No true scotsman, this is about Neo Bretonnia thinking my opinions are worthless simply because I sleep with more than one man.

I don't need justification, but it'd be entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics he'd need to go through to relate my sexual arrangements to my opinions on circumcision.

It could be amusing, but your sexual arrangements bare no weight on wether parents should allow their sons to be circumcised or not (the question being asked on the OP). Therefore, I don't think NTSM needs to justify his points in front of you. Of course, if he so wishes to, that's his choice. Neither does Neo B, for that matter.

You yourself already stated you don't care what others think. That's why, no one here needs to justify his/her points to you. You simply don't care.

It should be illegal?


Yes.


Should piercing a baby's ears be illegal too?


Maybe. I'd probably err towards 'no' for the reasons you pointed out later.


Making something 'imperfect' is really going to be a social norm.


Not necessarily. Perhaps a better definition would be that imperfect is simply a trend away from the native form.

I don't need justification, but it'd be entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics he'd need to go through to relate my sexual arrangements to my opinions on circumcision.

EDIT: Also, this isn't about No true scotsman, this is about Neo Bretonnia thinking my opinions are worthless simply because I sleep with more than one man.

I get the feeling that the 'more than' is irrelevant, too. I suspect you are disqualified from any kind of 'moral' input simply because you have had ANY male partners.

It is gential mutilation, and genital mutilation without consent should be illegal.
An argument, egad, an argument!

]But again - you're quibbling the semantics of the word, which is not relevant.
I'm not quibbling; you've stated that all nonmedical circumcision is arbitrary, i.e., that all nonmedical circumcision is based on nothing stronger than personal whim, but this is obviously not the case.

It's very much relevant, especially as you seem to (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14800853&postcount=354) have no interest in the motivations of the very thing you are arguing against.

It could be amusing, but your sexual arrangements bare no weight on wether parents should allow their sons to be circumcised or not (the question being asked on the OP). Therefore, I don't think NTSM needs to justify his points in front of you. Of course, if he so wishes to, that's his choice. Neither does Neo B, for that matter.

You yourself already stated you don't care what others think. That's why, no one here needs to justify his/her points to you. You simply don't care.

I know that my sexual arrangements have nothing to do with circumcision. Neo B thinks they do. It'd be amusing to see the reason why. This is completely unrelated to NTSM, you're confused.

Fingernails, toenails and hair all regrow. It probably is best that you know at least this much before you think too much about starting a family.

Going back to this. The criteria with whether we can remove things or not on a child is whether they regrow? Is that your position? Yes or no, please.

Ugh......ugh ugh ugh. Sorry, just reading about FGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation) again. Found this bit though to be quite shocking...

"A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."

That's with the absolute worst form of FGM.

The argument that a penis looks and works just fine after starts to break down if you compare social norms and the fact of the continuing possibility of female pleasure during sex, even with the most extreme and horrific form of FGM.

Because FGM IS so much more horrific, and bound up in misogynist cultural norms, it's easy to villify it on that fact alone. Is the fact that male circumcision is a kinder, gentler, and not misandrist practice enough to make it okay though?

Would anyone support the removal of the labia (not the clitoris) in female babies? I mean...it wouldn't even interfere with clitoral stimulation, and hey, adult women are increasingly getting their labia chopped down to look smaller, more 'attractive'...

I know that my sexual arrangements have nothing to do with circumcision. Neo B thinks they do. It'd be amusing to see the reason why. This is completely unrelated to NTSM, you're confused.

Re-read my post, Getbrett. I stated that Neo B doesn't need to go through any mental acrobatics to explain to you why he thinks circumcision has anything to do with your sexual arrangements. That's your personal life, and you're free to do as you please. If it floats your boat...

Re-read my post, Getbrett. I stated that Neo B doesn't need to go through any mental acrobatics to explain to you why he thinks circumcision has anything to do with your sexual arrangements. That's your personal life, and you're free to do as you please. If it floats your boat...

I'm not saying he should, I'm saying that it'd be amusing. It was his argument for dismissal of my opinions on circumcision, after all.

Explain male genital mutilation to me.

Jewish conspiracy.

Re-read my post, Getbrett. I stated that Neo B doesn't need to go through any mental acrobatics to explain to you why he thinks circumcision has anything to do with your sexual arrangements. That's your personal life, and you're free to do as you please. If it floats your boat...

Nana-chan... Getbrett is pointing out that Neo told him he had no valid input in a moral debate because he's had relationships with men.

That's the point - a 'you can't say anything about it, you're gay' argument.

Going back to this. The criteria with whether we can remove things or not on a child is whether they regrow? Is that your position? Yes or no, please.

No.

I'm not saying he should, I'm saying that it'd be amusing. It was his argument for dismissal of my opinions on circumcision, after all.

Do remember that this poster is writing from his belief base. He is a Christian. To Christians, homosexuality is despicable. But that's a topic for another thread.

Ugh......ugh ugh ugh. Sorry, just reading about FGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation) again. Found this bit though to be quite shocking...

"A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."

That's with the absolute worst form of FGM.

The argument that a penis looks and works just fine after starts to break down if you compare social norms and the fact of the continuing possibility of female pleasure during sex, even with the most extreme and horrific form of FGM.

Because FGM IS so much more horrific, and bound up in misogynist cultural norms, it's easy to villify it on that fact alone. Is the fact that male circumcision is a kinder, gentler, and not misandrist practice enough to make it okay though?

Would anyone support the removal of the labia (not the clitoris) in female babies? I mean...it wouldn't even interfere with clitoral stimulation, and hey, adult women are increasingly getting their labia chopped down to look smaller, more 'attractive'...

Important post.^^

No.

So what is the criteria for things that can or can't be removed? And don't say "anything on the penis that isn't hurting it".

Catholicism didn't come out of Judaism.

Well if by that you mean it wasn't a schism I will agree, however, that is not what I meant.

Do remember that this poster is writing from his belief base. He is a Christian. To some Christians, homosexuality is despicable. But that's a topic for another thread.

Please, I know it's a bit of a nitpick, but I don't like being grouped with that group of 'Christians'.

Please, I know it's a bit of a nitpick, but I don't like being grouped with that group of 'Christians'.

Fair enough.

Why would the father have more say? I can understand equal say, with the caveat I'm about to explain...but not more, just because daddy has a penis too. Is there another reason?

My two reasons:

- He will obviously have more intrinsic experience with penises, and thus may have a strong opinion on the subject that I lack (e.g. "I really wish I hadn't been circumcised").
- The last two guys I have dated have been Jewish. They have an additional reason for caring about their sons' penile status that I lack.

My caveat to equal say is this...when it comes to making permanent physical changes to a child that are not absolutely medically necessary...the parent firmly AGAINST said modification should win that argument. As was said before...it's easy enough to do it later...not so much if you want that foreskin back.

That makes sense to me, unless, essentially, the parent FOR really really cared or had some particularly compelling reason while the parent against did not. If the two are remotely close to equal in their feelings, I definitely think the default should be no snippage.

Were I to have a child with someone whose religion insisted on circumcision...well no just scrap that, because it wouldn't happen.

Aw, but the Jew-boys are so cute! They can make little curly-haired Jewbabies! :p


Circumcised penii might work and 'look' just fine, but how much of that is because we're used to uncircumcised penises in the US and Canada? I know a lot of women who think uncircumcised penises are ugly (fools), so it's not just 'looks' that determine mutilation.

Merriam Webster:

mutilate

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple


Making something 'imperfect' is really going to be a social norm. Nose rings probably made people look imperfect here in Canada and the US until people got more used to them. I'm not saying that it's actually mutilation despite the title of this thread...mutilation hints at (as was stated by someone else) motive. Or something icky. Anyway, don't think the look is the issue...the permanence of the procedure would lend itself to the definition. A pierced nose or ear can grow in...you can't grow back your foreskin. You know, without rubbing embryos on your penis.

As you'll see as you read further on, I think the permanence is the critical issue as well - I just don't think "permanent change" constitutes "mutilation" unless it is "permanent change for the worse."

As for the look, you're right that that's subjective and that someone COULD think one variety of penis or the other was particularly hideous. I think my main point there is that, honestly, they don't really look all that different. I'm much more used to circumcised cocks, so they look "better" to me, but the worst opinion I could conjure up of uncut cocks is "huh, that's slightly weird-looking," so I sorta figure most uncut-cock aficionados are unlikely to have much stronger negative opinions about the snipped variety.

Do remember that this poster is writing from his belief base. He is a Christian. To Christians, homosexuality is despicable. But that's a topic for another thread.

I understand that he may disagree with homosexuality. What I don't understand is how disagreeing with homosexuality somehow invalidates my opinions on something unrelated to homosexuality.

Really? You see "no clear distinction" between the removal of the entire external genitalia - a common version of FGM - and circumcision? 10%. The most common form is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or clitoral hood. One of the biggest reasons it is so dangerous health wise, is because of the often extremely unsanitary conditions FGM is carried out in. Were it considered normal, and were it to occur in sterile locations with licensed professionals performing the surgery, no doubt it could be done quite safely and easily. I sure as hell wouldn't want my clitoris removed, but then again, if it were done when I was a kid, how would I know the difference?

There was a brief mention earlier of a sort of informal study of men who'd been circumcised later on in life, and who could compare the before/after, sexually. I doubt there's been anything similar among women. If you found out, however, that the least extreme form of FGM didn't really cause any serious medical issues other than loss of sensitivity (sexual pleasure was still possible), would you support parents making this choice for their daughters?

Aw, but the Jew-boys are so cute! They can make little curly-haired Jewbabies! :p


That's the genetics. You could have the right genetics for it, and not insist on the mutilation.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

What I don't understand is how disagreeing with homosexuality somehow invalidates my opinions on something unrelated to homosexuality.

I don't rightly understand that one, tbh. It shouldn't bare any weight on this argument, true. Homosexuality is unrelated to the topic in question.

I don't rightly understand that one, tbh. It shouldn't bare any weight on this argument, true. Homosexuality is unrelated to the topic in question.

...and it's his explaination for this bizarre concept that I'd consider amusing :)

Aw, but the Jew-boys are so cute! They can make little curly-haired Jewbabies! :p
I'm babied out, Poli!!!! Also, I don't think I would marry someone whose cultural beliefs were too different than mine...if circumcision were a big issue, I don't think I could get over that now. When I was younger, and less mean perhaps.

I'm babied out, Poli!!!! Also, I don't think I would marry someone whose cultural beliefs were too different than mine...if circumcision were a big issue, I don't think I could get over that now. When I was younger, and less mean perhaps.

Wait -

You were less mean?

...and it's his explaination for this bizarre concept that I'd consider amusing :)

Perhaps he'll offer it. This thread has ran the gamut of 20 or more different unrelated topics along with the OP so...

My view: totally pointless practice but I see no evidence that it causes any harm to anyone, thus I don't support a ban.

So what is the criteria for things that can or can't be removed? And don't say "anything on the penis that isn't hurting it".

Don't say that... why? Because you can't quibble with it?

My (personal) consideration for whether a thing counts as mutilation is more functional. Fingernails are 'designed' to erode and replace. Hair, much the same. A penis... not so much.

Would anyone support the removal of the labia (not the clitoris) in female babies?
I hope not!
and hey, adult women are increasingly getting their labia chopped down to look smaller, more 'attractive'...
Now that's a trend I believe I'll never understand. Besides, I don't consider a small(er) labia to be more attractive!

Wait -

You were less mean?

Not really :D

I've had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. I have noticed no difference in my experience, their apparent experience, or their levels of hygiene (both fine). I do not see any non-religious reason for circumcision in societies that have access to clean (uncontaminated) water for cleansing.

If I had a male child of my own, I would not have him circumcised.

I am not sure I agree with the comparison of male circumcision to FGM. I have to think about that more, which is very unpleasant, and I don't appreciate it, Neesika. *glare*

Don't say that... why? Because you can't quibble with it?

My (personal) consideration for whether a thing counts as mutilation is more functional. Fingernails are 'designed' to erode and replace. Hair, much the same. A penis... not so much.

True, but how about skin tags? Moles? Really big monstrous earlobes? Things like that? Can we remove (or trim) those?

They don't grow back.
They aren't medically harmful.

Those are the only two criteria I've seen so far out of you in this thread. Am I missing something?

True, but how about skin tags? Moles? Really big monstrous earlobes? Things like that? Can we remove (or trim) those?

They don't grow back.
They aren't medically harmful.

Those are the only two criteria I've seen so far out of you in this thread. Am I missing something?

It seems to me you mainly want to quibble over exactly what you can parse under 'medical'.

10%. The most common form is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or clitoral hood. One of the biggest reasons it is so dangerous health wise, is because of the often extremely unsanitary conditions FGM is carried out in. Were it considered normal, and were it to occur in sterile locations with licensed professionals performing the surgery, no doubt it could be done quite safely and easily. I sure as hell wouldn't want my clitoris removed, but then again, if it were done when I was a kid, how would I know the difference?

There was a brief mention earlier of a sort of informal study of men who'd been circumcised later on in life, and who could compare the before/after, sexually. I doubt there's been anything similar among women. If you found out, however, that the least extreme form of FGM didn't really cause any serious medical issues other than loss of sensitivity (sexual pleasure was still possible), would you support parents making this choice for their daughters?

Yay for non-stupid arguments. ;)

I think there is an important distinction to be made, first, between "sexual pleasure is still possible," and "sexual pleasure is not noticeably impaired at all." Basically, the only reason why I am fairly neutral on the issue of male circumcision is that there is no conclusive evidence that it causes any harm whatsoever (assuming it's done well, in sterile conditions, etc., of course). If I were presented with evidence that it was likely to make sexual pleasure more difficult for the rest of a guy's life, I would pretty instantly switch to being strongly against it. Similarly, if there were some form of female circumcision that seemed to cause no harm at all, I wouldn't find it worse than male circumcision, but would have the same general default of "I probably wouldn't do it to my kid unless you showed me a compelling medical reason."

To me, because there does not appear to be any damage involved, the critical issue is that of permanence and consent. I'm not comfortable with the idea of permanently modifying my child's body unless there is a good reason; the tricky bit is just figuring out what constitutes a "good reason." :)

I am not sure I agree with the comparison of male circumcision to FGM. I have to think about that more, which is very unpleasant, and I don't appreciate it, Neesika. *glare*

:p

FGM is so totally alien to us. It's condemned, and I feel rightly so. It does strike me as very odd, however, that there is rarely a public discussion about male circumcision. Again, why is that? Just because it's 'nicer'?

It seems to me you mainly want to quibble over exactly what you can parse under 'medical'.

My point is is that you have provided no convincing evidence that it causes harm and should be banned and parents locked up for abuse for even thinking such a thing.

Now, personally, I wouldn't have my son circumcised. However, I also wouldn't throw the hundreds of thousands of parents in the US in jail who did. I would need some sort of evidence that they deliberately harmed their child.

In essence, thus far, you've only convinced me that it's as harmful as removing a skin tag - which is not at all.

I'm babied out, Poli!!!! Also, I don't think I would marry someone whose cultural beliefs were too different than mine...if circumcision were a big issue, I don't think I could get over that now. When I was younger, and less mean perhaps.

But....doesn't everyone want their own Jewbabies? Lots of them? Maybe 7 or 8 or...okay, I'll stop attempting to scare the shit out of my boyfriend now. :tongue:

My point is is that you have provided no convincing evidence that it causes harm and should be banned and parents locked up for abuse for even thinking such a thing.

Now, personally, I wouldn't have my son circumcised. However, I also wouldn't throw the hundreds of thousands of parents in the US in jail who did. I would need some sort of evidence that they deliberately harmed their child.

In essence, thus far, you've only convinced me that it's as harmful as removing a skin tag - which is not at all.

I think you're starting from an odd place. You're talking about a form of genital mutilation on very small children, and you're asking ME to provide reasons why it should NOT be done.

I think you're starting from an odd place. You're talking about a form of genital mutilation on very small children, and you're asking ME to provide reasons why it should NOT be done.

Well you're the one calling for parents to be locked up for abuse. I think we should have some sort of reason to lock them up other than "it's icky!"

But....doesn't everyone want their own Jewbabies? Lots of them? Maybe 7 or 8 or...okay, I'll stop attempting to scare the shit out of my boyfriend now. :tongue:

I think I see him running over there....no, he's over there now...quick, catch him before he gets away! :D

My friend's parents decided not to circumcise her brother when he was a baby. He had repeated infections, and they decided to have it done later, when he was six or seven. The decision in that case seems much like the one my parents made to have my tonsils removed: there was a continual problem which required antibiotics, which aren't great to be on all the time, and a simple surgery corrected it.

I would circumcise my son under those conditions--as a necessary procedure. However, if there were no problems, I wouldn't have it done. Just like they no longer line kids up in the school gym and rip out their tonsils because of the possibility of infection, I don't think it's necessary any longer--if it ever was--to perform preventative surgery on an infant.

To me, because there does not appear to be any damage involved,

Appearances are deceptive.

Removing the foreskin removes something like 20,000 sensory nerve endings.

It also removes the natural protection from the glans, and forces the glans to alter it's natural construction, forming a hard external keratin layer.

Appearances are deceptive.

Removing the foreskin removes something like 20,000 sensory nerve endings.

It also removes the natural protection from the glans, and forces the glans to alter it's natural construction, forming a hard external keratin layer.

Source!

I would think as a uncut man gets older and perhaps is not able to take care of himself may have issues with keeping it clean. I would also think that caregivers being what they are would not likely keep that area clean 100% of the time. With that it is possible in my opinion that there would be an increased risk of problems as a man gets older and needs care.

Well you're the one calling for parents to be locked up for abuse. I think we should have some sort of reason to lock them up other than "it's icky!"

Fortunately, outside of Gallo's Dreamworld, the 'it's icky' argument hasn't been presented.

:p

FGM is so totally alien to us. It's condemned, and I feel rightly so. It does strike me as very odd, however, that there is rarely a public discussion about male circumcision. Again, why is that? Just because it's 'nicer'?

That is interesting. I guess there really isn`t any difference between the two.

I`ve heard circumcized females defend FGM. I guess it is a natural reaction when people are calling you genitals mutilated and ruined, when they have in fact served you well for most of of your life. It would probably feel as if they were insulting your body, rather than the practice.
It is probably similar with men and their cicumcision.

Fortunately, outside of Gallo's Dreamworld, the 'it's icky' argument hasn't been presented.

Well, you have said because the penis is "mutilated."

Looking up mutilated, we find this:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Is a circumcised penis imperfect? That's rather subjective.

Is the foreskin an essential part? Nope, it isn't.

Therefore, to prove mutilation, you must prove harm first. I still haven't seen proof of harm.

Y sigue girandu la noria!!!!!:rolleyes:

Source!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8043224

(For the keratinization)


and:

http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm

"...circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well".

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...

I think it's become ingrained in our culture to an extent where people don't question it anymore. Most guys my age I know are circumcised. I remember someone on NSG linked to a gallery of penises (don't ask me the thread topic, do we even need an excuse?) and I was surprised because none of them were circumcised. It looked strange.

Appearances are deceptive.

Removing the foreskin removes something like 20,000 sensory nerve endings.

It also removes the natural protection from the glans, and forces the glans to alter it's natural construction, forming a hard external keratin layer.

How many times in this thread am I going to have to explain basic definitions to you? "Appears" is rather obviously being used here as a synonym for "seems." I am not talking about what it LOOKS like. As I have now mentioned to you a couple of times, the actual medical research on the subject has had entirely mixed results as to whether circumcised penises are more, less, or equally sensitive compared to uncircumcised penises. I have seen no evidence that circumcised men enjoy sex any less than uncircumcised men. There is some evidence that circumcision offers health benefits. Those are the things that actual medical studies have found. They do not add up to remotely conclusive evidence of damage.

Well, you have said because the penis is "mutilated."

Looking up mutilated, we find this:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Is a circumcised penis imperfect? That's rather subjective.

Is the foreskin an essential part? Nope, it isn't.

Therefore, to prove mutilation, you must prove harm first. I still haven't seen proof of harm.

But lets look up imperfect:

im⋅per⋅fect

–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characterized by defects or weaknesses: imperfect vision.
2. not perfect; lacking completeness: imperfect knowledge.
3. Grammar. noting action or state still in process at some temporal point of reference, particularly in the past.
4. Law. being without legal effect or support; unenforceable.
5. Botany. (of a flower) diclinous.
6. Music. of or relating to the interval of a major or minor third or sixth. Compare perfect (def. 12a).


Look at definition 2
I`d say a circumsized penis is not complete because it is missing a piece.

Well, you have said because the penis is "mutilated."

Looking up mutilated, we find this:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Is a circumcised penis imperfect? That's rather subjective.

Is the foreskin an essential part? Nope, it isn't.

Therefore, to prove mutilation, you must prove harm first. I still haven't seen proof of harm.

The clitoris isn't an "essential part", either, but female circumcision is regarded as mutilation by most of the world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8043224

(For the keratinization)


and:

http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm

"...circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well".

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Give me a few moments to read this.

Well, you have said because the penis is "mutilated."

Looking up mutilated, we find this:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Is a circumcised penis imperfect? That's rather subjective.

Is the foreskin an essential part? Nope, it isn't.

Therefore, to prove mutilation, you must prove harm first. I still haven't seen proof of harm.

Cut up. Check. Alter radically. Check. Made imperfect (if you assume the form which has evolved as 'fittest' is perfect). Check.

Cut off. Check. Permanently remove. Check. Essential part of. (Depends on your deifinition of 'essential'.

That is interesting. I guess there really isn`t any difference between the two.

I`ve heard circumcized females defend FGM. I guess it is a natural reaction when people are calling you genitals mutilated and ruined, when they have in fact served you well for most of of your life. It would probably feel as if they were insulting your body, rather than the practice.
It is probably similar with men and their cicumcision.

There's actually a pretty big difference between the two, not the least of which is the fact that many female circumcisions are performed outside of sterile hospital environments without any analgesics.

But lets look up imperfect:

im⋅per⋅fect

–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characterized by defects or weaknesses: imperfect vision.
2. not perfect; lacking completeness: imperfect knowledge.
3. Grammar. noting action or state still in process at some temporal point of reference, particularly in the past.
4. Law. being without legal effect or support; unenforceable.
5. Botany. (of a flower) diclinous.
6. Music. of or relating to the interval of a major or minor third or sixth. Compare perfect (def. 12a).


Look at definition 2
I`d say a circumsized penis is not complete because it is missing a piece.

I think that's pushing the definition in this context, though, and I think, as you yourself pointed out earlier, it's automatically pretty insulting to circumcised guys to declare that their penises are fundamentally "imperfect." I am quite fond of my boyfriend's cock just the way it is, and I do not feel that the addition of a foreskin would render it more "perfect."

How many times in this thread am I going to have to explain basic definitions to you? "Appears" is rather obviously being used here as a synonym for "seems." I am not talking about what it LOOKS like. As I have now mentioned to you a couple of times, the actual medical research on the subject has had entirely mixed results as to whether circumcised penises are more, less, or equally sensitive compared to uncircumcised penises. I have seen no evidence that circumcised men enjoy sex any less than uncircumcised men. There is some evidence that circumcision offers health benefits. Those are the things that actual medical studies have found. They do not add up to remotely conclusive evidence of damage.

I'll ignore the bulk of this because it's more of the same.

I'll respond to the 'medical research' bit. There is no debate about whether circumcision removes meters of blood vessels and thousands of nerve endings.

Chopping of functional tissue, with all those blood vessels and nerve endings is damage. Nothing to do with how it looks - it's purely in terms of the machinery.

I think that's pushing the definition in this context, though, and I think, as you yourself pointed out earlier, it's automatically pretty insulting to circumcised guys to declare that their penises are fundamentally "imperfect." I am quite fond of my boyfriend's cock just the way it is, and I do not feel that the addition of a foreskin would render it more "perfect."

Uh, insulting people who've been circumcised is irrelevant to the argument of whether circumcision itself is a good idea.

I think that's pushing the definition in this context, though, and I think, as you yourself pointed out earlier, it's automatically pretty insulting to circumcised guys to declare that their penises are fundamentally "imperfect." I am quite fond of my boyfriend's cock just the way it is, and I do not feel that the addition of a foreskin would render it more "perfect."

That's because you keep confusing (your own acceptance of) appearance and imperfect/perfect.

There's nothing insulting about it - it's not an insult to say that someone with less fingers has less fingers.

The clitoris isn't an "essential part", either

I would disagree with this. It is not essential for reproduction, but it is fairly essential for sexual pleasure. The foreskin is essential for neither, so I don't think the comparison really works.

There's actually a pretty big difference between the two, not the least of which is the fact that many female circumcisions are performed outside of sterile hospital environments without any analgesics.

Historically, the same is true of male circumcision.

There's actually a pretty big difference between the two, not the least of which is the fact that many female circumcisions are performed outside of sterile hospital environments without any analgesics.
I think it was a given that I was talking about doing the procedures in an environment which minimizes risks of complications.

I would disagree with this. It is not essential for reproduction, but it is fairly essential for sexual pleasure. The foreskin is essential for neither, so I don't think the comparison really works.

The clitoris isn't essential for sexual pleasure.

If you're 'logic' is sound, you should have no argument against the removal of the clitoris.

Uh, insulting people who've been circumcised is irrelevant to the argument of whether circumcision itself is a good idea.

Okay? I don't believe I was addressing the issue of whether or not circumcision is a good idea in that particular post. Did you have a point?

Okay? I don't believe I was addressing the issue of whether or not circumcision is a good idea in that particular post. Did you have a point?

The accurate description of a cut cock as "imperfect" (because it's sans the foreskin and is therefore not whole), even if insulting to those with cut cocks, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not circumcision is valid.

Okay? I don't believe I was addressing the issue of whether or not circumcision is a good idea in that particular post. Did you have a point?

You were arguing against the terms inherent in 'mutilation'... whether or not it counts as 'imperfect', and thus whether or not it qualifies as mutilation.

I think that's pushing the definition in this context, though, and I think, as you yourself pointed out earlier, it's automatically pretty insulting to circumcised guys to declare that their penises are fundamentally "imperfect." I am quite fond of my boyfriend's cock just the way it is, and I do not feel that the addition of a foreskin would render it more "perfect."

But that is just because you are thinking of the definition we use for "perfect" and "imperfect" in our everyday speech. Which is definition 1.
The dictionary was using the more general dictionary definition when defining mutilation. Which is definition 2.

This is one of the funniest articles I've ever read. Accepting it on its face value, it would be a good case to make for "abuse."

However, here are some excerpts I liked:

* Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has longlasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,[36] adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.[37] Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. [38, 39]

That explains my dain bramage.

* Circumcision harms mothers: Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcision is followed by prolonged, unrestful non-REM (rapid eye movement) sleep.[65] In response to the lengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable pain, the circumcised babies withdrew into a kind of semicoma that lasted days or even weeks.

Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision disrupts the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth. Research has also shown that circumcision disrupts feeding patterns. In a study at the Washington University School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse right after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers' eyes.[66]

Keep that in mind Poli, but this is even more important:

A circumcised father who has mixed feelings about his intact newborn son may require gentle, compassionate psychological counseling to help him come to terms with his loss and to overcome his anxieties about normal male genitalia. In such cases, the mother should steadfastly protect her child, inviting her husband to share this protective role and helping him diffuse his negative feelings.

When raising your son, keep this in mind:

The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.[26]

Also, if you ever want your son's trust, hands off the pee-pee:

The experience of the ages has shown that babies thrive best in a trusting atmosphere of love, gentleness, respect, acceptance, nurturing, and intimacy. Cutting off a baby's foreskin shatters this trust.

A lot of the claims in this article just... well go against everything I've ever heard, read, or experienced.

How many times in this thread am I going to have to explain basic definitions to you? "Appears" is rather obviously being used here as a synonym for "seems." I am not talking about what it LOOKS like. As I have now mentioned to you a couple of times, the actual medical research on the subject has had entirely mixed results as to whether circumcised penises are more, less, or equally sensitive compared to uncircumcised penises. I have seen no evidence that circumcised men enjoy sex any less than uncircumcised men. There is some evidence that circumcision offers health benefits. Those are the things that actual medical studies have found. They do not add up to remotely conclusive evidence of damage.

Sin presented similar evidence that FGM doesn't necessarily affect function.

I find it astonishing that people would say whether or not children are subjected to unnecessary surgery should be up to the parents.

What about liposuction for small children? I mean, why not, right?

Incidentally, you do know there are potential complications for MGM, right? Not just the fact that a healthy body part is removed without consent of the patient. I was fortunate enough to get an additional, now necessary surgery, as a result of my original unnecessary surgery. So, yay, only two surgeries I didn't need to remove a body part I did.

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.

I feel this way about the practice of piercing infant girls' ears. Most people I've talked to about it are very surprised and think it's weird that I'm against it. It seems somewhat barbaric to me.

I'll ignore the bulk of this because it's more of the same.

I'll respond to the 'medical research' bit. There is no debate about whether circumcision removes meters of blood vessels and thousands of nerve endings.

Chopping of functional tissue, with all those blood vessels and nerve endings is damage. Nothing to do with how it looks - it's purely in terms of the machinery.

God, these semantics debates are getting tedious.

No one is arguing that circumcised penises are exactly the same as uncircumcised ones. No one is arguing that a piece has not been removed. The point is that, according to the actual medical research on the subject, the circumcised penis is just as functional as an uncircumcised penis. If I cut my hair, I have less hair. No one disputes that. It would, however, be somewhat silly to allege that I have been DAMAGED by having less hair without some evidence showing that short-haired people suffer in some way due to their comparative lack of hair.

Sin presented similar evidence that FGM doesn't necessarily affect function.

I find it astonishing that people would say whether or not children are subjected to unnecessary surgery should be up to the parents.

What about liposuction for small children? I mean, why not, right?

Incidentally, you do know there are potential complications for MGM, right? Not just the fact that a healthy body part is removed without consent of the patient. I was fortunate enough to get an additional, now necessary surgery, as a result of my original unnecessary surgery. So, yay, only two surgeries I didn't need to remove a body part I did.

Oy vey, will people try READING MY ACTUAL POSTS.

Let me try this one more time: I AM NOT PARTICULARLY IN FAVOR OF CIRCUMCISION. THE FACT THAT I DO NOT THINK IT IS MUTILATION OR ABUSE OR THE MOST HORRIBLE THING EVER EVER EVER DOES NOT MEAN I AM REMOTELY SUGGESTING IT IS A FANTASTIC THING EVERYONE SHOULD DO TO THEIR KIDS. I HAVE IN FACT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD NOT.

Christ.

Historically, the same is true of male circumcision.

If by "historically" you mean "before the modern era where most people have medical procedures done in medical settings", then sure. They also used to remove tonsils in gyms and on kitchen tables, but they don't anymore, and it's silly to talk about it like they do.

I think it was a given that I was talking about doing the procedures in an environment which minimizes risks of complications.

The majority of FGM does not occur in a hospital. In fact, I'm willing to bet the majority of hospitals world-wide would not perform the procedures.

I think that's pushing the definition in this context, though, and I think, as you yourself pointed out earlier, it's automatically pretty insulting to circumcised guys to declare that their penises are fundamentally "imperfect." I am quite fond of my boyfriend's cock just the way it is, and I do not feel that the addition of a foreskin would render it more "perfect."

Um, what? Well, yes, I also don't think we should consider blind people imperfect, because it's insulting. Therefore, blinding someone also isn't mutilation. Or cutting someone's face.

Do you realize what a bad argument that is? If I dated someone whose face was intentionally mutilated by someone, I'd definitely not refer to her face as imperfect. Her face would still function. But if her face was cut up by someone against her will, it most certainly would be considered mutilation. My desire or lack thereof to offend her would be irrelevant. My love for her would also be irrelevant.

This is one of the funniest articles I've ever read. Accepting it on its face value, it would be a good case to make for "abuse."

However, here are some excerpts I liked:



That explains my dain bramage.



Keep that in mind Poli, but this is even more important:



When raising your son, keep this in mind:



Also, if you ever want your son's trust, hands off the pee-pee:



A lot of the claims in this article just... well go against everything I've ever heard, read, or experienced.

If you've got nothing to say, say nothing.

I would think as a uncut man gets older and perhaps is not able to take care of himself may have issues with keeping it clean. I would also think that caregivers being what they are would not likely keep that area clean 100% of the time. With that it is possible in my opinion that there would be an increased risk of problems as a man gets older and needs care.
Thank goodness men usually die before women. I really don't want to have to deal with a man who needs that level of care.

So what are we talking about here? Circumcisions for seniors? Alright!
That is interesting. I guess there really isn`t any difference between the two. Whoa there Nelly! Not what I said! The least intrusive form of FGM (that isn't purely symbolic, like pricking of the clitoris etc) at the very least means removing the clitoral hood. I don't have enough knowledge of biology to accurately state whether that is qualitatively the same as snipping the foreskin or not. Just saying.

I`ve heard circumcized females defend FGM. I guess it is a natural reaction when people are calling you genitals mutilated and ruined, when they have in fact served you well for most of of your life. It would probably feel as if they were insulting your body, rather than the practice.
It is probably similar with men and their cicumcision.
I know a number of Somali women who are quite proud of their genitalia, 'mutilated', 'circumcised' or what have you. I know other Somali women who have had the operation and hate it, and would never allow their daughters to have it. One thing that the study I mentioned earlier said (actually I just provided the wiki link, study was in the notes) was that if the experience surrounding FGM was positive, women were more likely to experience sexual fulfillment later on, than if the experience were negative. That makes sense to me. If you grabbed a little boy when he was between 4 and 8, dragged him off and circumcised him cruelly, telling him it's because his body is evil the way it was...no doubt he'd have sexual issues later on too.

I think it's become ingrained in our culture to an extent where people don't question it anymore. Most guys my age I know are circumcised. I remember someone on NSG linked to a gallery of penises (don't ask me the thread topic, do we even need an excuse?) and I was surprised because none of them were circumcised. It looked strange.

I'd never seen one until I was in my late 20's .. and that was on the internet too.

My niece had her son circumcised because .. well she thought she was just suppose to since my sister thought everyone was circumcised and that was just the way it was and told her to say yeah when they were asked. They were lucky they were asked at all actually.

No fault on either of them imo. They just didn't know any better. And I know that if I had had a son years ago.. I would've automatically said yes too, if asked, for that same uninformed reason.

My dad was in his 40's when he was circumcised. Mom said there was no problem.. it's just that the doctor said ..whatever he said to them .. and either of them not knowing any better agreed. He had to later get skin grafted and put back on because they took off too much. They both regretted it later. Been having no problems whatsoever ... and the freakin quack doc goes in and cuts.. I wish I knew who that doctor was. I bet money he was a Christian or Jew .. and felt the need to get rid of that evil skin for his own religious belief. What other reason was there .. there was no medical problem. They should've sued his ass.

God, these semantics debates are getting tedious.

No one is arguing that circumcised penises are exactly the same as uncircumcised ones. No one is arguing that a piece has not been removed. The point is that, according to the actual medical research on the subject, the circumcised penis is just as functional as an uncircumcised penis. If I cut my hair, I have less hair. No one disputes that. It would, however, be somewhat silly to allege that I have been DAMAGED by having less hair without some evidence showing that short-haired people suffer in some way due to their comparative lack of hair.

This isn't a semantic debate - this is you deliberately (I hope) missing the point.

Cutting your hair really shouldn't limit the potential size of your head, shouldn't remove meters of blood supply, and shouldn't dissect tens of thousands of nerves.

This ongoing catalogues of comparisons is somewhere between hilarious and terrifying. A penis-cut is like a harcut... male genital mutilation is like wearing a fuzzy hat. You're either a fucking riot, or a monster.

Oy vey, will people try READING MY ACTUAL POSTS.

Let me try this one more time: I AM NOT PARTICULARLY IN FAVOR OF CIRCUMCISION. THE FACT THAT I DO NOT THINK IT IS MUTILATION OR ABUSE OR THE MOST HORRIBLE THING EVER EVER EVER DOES NOT MEAN I AM REMOTELY SUGGESTING IT IS A FANTASTIC THING EVERYONE SHOULD DO TO THEIR KIDS. I HAVE IN FACT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD NOT.

Christ.

You're quite clearly defending it. You compare permanently removing a healthy and functional body part to cutting off hair. Nevermind that people don't die from cutting off hair. They certainly don't suffer complications. Cutting off hair doesn't hurt. Hair grows back. Otherwise, a perfectly valid comparison, really. I'm sure you wouldn't jump on anyone for comparing FGM to cutting hair, right?

I notice you didn't reply to whether or not you'd equally defend liposuction on toddlers.

If by "historically" you mean "before the modern era where most people have medical procedures done in medical settings", then sure. They also used to remove tonsils in gyms and on kitchen tables, but they don't anymore, and it's silly to talk about it like they do.


But that's the argument you used for FGM...

So - if we did it in fully outfitted ORs, you'd have no problems with FGM?

The majority of FGM does not occur in a hospital. In fact, I'm willing to bet the majority of hospitals world-wide would not perform the procedures.

Indeed, but if they did, it would be the same as male circumsion.

The clitoris isn't essential for sexual pleasure.

If you're 'logic' is sound, you should have no argument against the removal of the clitoris.

removing the clit would be like removing the head or entire penis on a man. The removal of the clit hood .. our foreskin, is what is the same as male circumcision.

And no way in heck I'd want my clit hood removed. lol

You're quite clearly defending it. You compare permanently removing a healthy and functional body part to cutting off hair. Nevermind that people don't die from cutting off hair. They certainly don't suffer complications. Cutting off hair doesn't hurt. Hair grows back. Otherwise, a perfectly valid comparison, really. I'm sure you wouldn't jump on anyone for comparing FGM to cutting hair, right?

I notice you didn't reply to whether or not you'd equally defend liposuction on toddlers.

...you know what, you want to invent stupid fucking arguments I never made, you can do it without me here. I am sick of this shit.

removing the clit would be like removing the head or entire penis on a man. The removal of the clit hood .. our foreskin, is what is the same as male circumcision.

And no way in heck I'd want my clit hood removed. lol

Removing the clit wouldn't stop the genitalia from being functional for reproduction, though - and sexual pleasure is not entirely contingent on it.

If we're going to say that those factors are enough to make male circumcision okay, wouldn't it be intellectually dishonest of us to demand special exceptions for female genital mutilations?

...you know what, you want to invent stupid fucking arguments I never made, you can do it without me here. I am sick of this shit.

That actually looked like a fairly reasonable assessment.. although I can understand why you'd not want to have to deal with it.

Whoa there Nelly! Not what I said!
No, it isn't what you said. That is what I think.
when it comes down to it, I feel there is no difference between female and male circumsion.

He had to later get skin grafted and put back on because they took off too much.

I'd put money on the table that every guy winced reading that.

:p

FGM is so totally alien to us. It's condemned, and I feel rightly so. It does strike me as very odd, however, that there is rarely a public discussion about male circumcision. Again, why is that? Just because it's 'nicer'?
I think it's more because the intentions of it (both the religious motives and the claimed medical ones) are different.

Indeed, but if they did, it would be the same as male circumsion.

'Gee, if reality were different, my argument would be totally right!'

They don't, so even according to you, they are NOT the same.

And reality tends to include little things like context, which you can only deliberately ignore to make your comparison stick. It's like pointing out that both execution and murder involving killing, so that hey, they must be exactly the same! Wrong. Context is everything.

...you know what, you want to invent stupid fucking arguments I never made, you can do it without me here. I am sick of this shit.
Buh? You didn't compare to cutting hair? What exactly is the part I made up?

I agree it was a "stupid fucking argument." Unfortunately, though, it was a comparison you made. Shall I quote you?

That actually looked like a fairly reasonable assessment.. although I can understand why you'd not want to have to deal with it.

Yes, I rather expected that you would see it as "reasonable," given that you've displayed a similarly complete lack of interest in addressing the arguments people actually make instead of inventing bullshit to rail against.

Thank goodness men usually die before women. I really don't want to have to deal with a man who needs that level of care.
.

I swear there is a conspiracy to put guys in the grave early. All the stress you womens put on us. :tongue:

I swear there is a conspiracy to put guys in the grave early. All the stress you womens put on us. :tongue:

Quick run before you *gets shot at but rolls a 20 and successfully dodges* get shot!

...you know what, you want to invent stupid fucking arguments I never made, you can do it without me here. I am sick of this shit.

Good times on NSG I tell ya.

Yes, I rather expected that you would see it as "reasonable," given that you've displayed a similarly complete lack of interest in addressing the arguments people actually make instead of inventing bullshit to rail against.

Inventing?

God, these semantics debates are getting tedious.

No one is arguing that circumcised penises are exactly the same as uncircumcised ones. No one is arguing that a piece has not been removed. The point is that, according to the actual medical research on the subject, the circumcised penis is just as functional as an uncircumcised penis. If I cut my hair, I have less hair. No one disputes that. It would, however, be somewhat silly to allege that I have been DAMAGED by having less hair without some evidence showing that short-haired people suffer in some way due to their comparative lack of hair.

You plainly and clearly compared a circumcision SURGERY to cutting someone's hair. You only a few posts later accused me of making it up.

You also quote a different post by me, claimed you'd not defended the practice, when you're actively arguing that it should parental choice. I can find you a few quotes of that as well, you know.

I didn't attribute any arguments to you, you didn't make. If I have, please quote me and point out what specific part is "bullshit".

I would disagree with this. It is not essential for reproduction, but it is fairly essential for sexual pleasure. The foreskin is essential for neither, so I don't think the comparison really works.
Um...how do you know the foreskin is not essential, or at least very important?

I said that I have never seen any difference in the apparent experience of the circumcised and uncircumcised men I've had sex with. That is because I have no way of ever comparing their experiences. First, because I don't keep all my lovers locked up in the same basement. Second, how would they even know? How do you measure relative levels of pleasure? How would a guy who was circumcised as an infant have any idea how much more or less he would enjoy sex if he had not been snipped?

Quick run before you *gets shot*

Nah women don't shoot typically. They like the slow torture. They kill us slowly with stress and menstrual cycles.

First, because I don't keep all my lovers locked up in the same basement.

Wait thats not normal? erh I'll be right back...

'Gee, if reality were different, my argument would be totally right!'

They don't, so even according to you, they are NOT the same.

And reality tends to include little things like context, which you can only deliberately ignore to make your comparison stick. It's like pointing out that both execution and murder involving killing, so that hey, they must be exactly the same! Wrong. Context is everything.

You do realize that they perform circumcisions in homes with fair frequency, yeah?

The question is, if I had a daughter and wanted to have her genitalia altered because I thought it would "look prettier" or so she would look like her mother or some other such tripe would you support the practice?

I feel this way about the practice of piercing infant girls' ears. Most people I've talked to about it are very surprised and think it's weird that I'm against it. It seems somewhat barbaric to me.

I want to know where the Infant Ear Mutilation victims are. The ones who feel traumatized, guilty, ashamed, violated, mistrustful, post-traumatic stress and long-term mental problems about such a horrible violation. The ones who compare it to FGM and campaign tirelessly to ban it.

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?


Not our fingers, but definitely our fingernails ;)

Not really bothered to think about it much. If I have a kid any time soon, I'll likely be really fucking pissed at myself and slightly mystified. (What little sex grad school has allowed me time to have has been extremely, redundantly, safe).

'Gee, if reality were different, my argument would be totally right!'

They don't, so even according to you, they are NOT the same.

And reality tends to include little things like context, which you can only deliberately ignore to make your comparison stick. It's like pointing out that both execution and murder involving killing, so that hey, they must be exactly the same! Wrong. Context is everything.

The penis doesn't care about context, the vagina doesn't care about context. All the body cares about is whether the cuts are able to heal without infection etc.
So if you circumsize a baby boy in a clean hospital and circumsize a baby girl in a clean hospital. With no violence involved or anything then I feel like you have essentially done the same thing to each child.

People might react differently when you tell them you circumsized a girl than if you tell them you circumsized a boy but that is just because people still associate female circumcision with violence and unsterilized knives and such. None of these things are inherently necessary for circumsision to occur.

If you've got nothing to say, say nothing.

I'm saying I find your article "A case against circumcision" biased and inaccurate, especially as the American Academy of Pediatrics has a few bullet points that specifically contradict it.

http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Circumcision.htm

In short, there are reasons both ways.

I want to know where the Infant Ear Mutilation victims are. The ones who feel traumatized, guilty, ashamed, violated, mistrustful, post-traumatic stress and long-term mental problems about such a horrible violation. The ones who compare it to FGM and campaign tirelessly to ban it.

I'm pretty pissed off that my mom pierced my ears when I was a baby. I don't know how traumatized I am, but I feel self conscious about the permanent scars on my ear lobes. It's not FGM, but it's not my genitals either.....I mean, like, it doesn't compare.

You do realize that they perform circumcisions in homes with fair frequency, yeah?

The question is, if I had a daughter and wanted to have her genitalia altered because I thought it would "look prettier" or so she would look like her mother or some other such tripe would you support the practice?

If done legally and professionally and the result would be no worse than the result of my own circumcision, yes. But only in the same sense that I would support the practice of you being able to enroll your children in a private school run by an organized religion. I don't personally approve, but I don't personally disapprove so much as to say you wouldn't have the right.

Yes, I rather expected that you would see it as "reasonable," given that you've displayed a similarly complete lack of interest in addressing the arguments people actually make instead of inventing bullshit to rail against.
Sistah, let it go. You know what I mean. It's someone else's treadmill. You don't want to climb on board with them. You know what I mean... You made your argument. They either read it or they don't. If you're satisfied with it, stand by it and have done. It's only the internet...

So from Galloism's link:

Reasons parents may choose circumcision

There are a variety of reasons why parents choose circumcision.

Medical benefits, including
--A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.

--A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.

--A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

--Prevention of foreskin infections.

--Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.

--Easier genital hygiene.

--Social reasons. Many parents choose to have it done because "all the other men in the family" had it done or because they do not want their sons to feel "different."

--Religious or cultural reasons. Some groups such as followers of the Jewish and Islamic faiths practice circumcision for religious and cultural reasons.

Sistah, let it go. You know what I mean. It's someone else's treadmill. You don't want to climb on board with them. You know what I mean... You made your argument. They either read it or they don't. If you're satisfied with it, stand by it and have done. It's only the internet...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

The penis doesn't care about context, the vagina doesn't care about context. All the body cares about is whether the cuts are able to heal without infection etc.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing with a penis or a vagina, I am responding to you and your argument.

And I think it's a little disturbing that you personify the genitals to the point where they have their own "cares..."

So if you circumsize a baby boy in a clean hospital and circumsize a baby girl in a clean hospital. With no violence involved or anything then I feel like you have essentially done the same thing to each child.

See this is what I mean. *You* don't care about context. Sure, the penis and vagina don't care about context either, but I do as a thinking and rational being. FGM is done to harm female children as part of a cultural practice of anti-woman tribal patriarchy. MGM is not. FGM is almost always harmful. MGM is almost never harmful.


People might react differently when you tell them you circumsized a girl than if you tell them you circumsized a boy but that is just because people still associate female circumcision with violence and unsterilized knives and such. None of these things are inherently necessary for circumsision to occur.

None of the things you and the others have spoken of - trauma etc allegedly caused by circumcision - are necessary for circumcision to occur either. I can say this because I myself have not felt any one of those things and was circumcised.

I want to know where the Infant Ear Mutilation victims are. The ones who feel traumatized, guilty, ashamed, violated, mistrustful, post-traumatic stress and long-term mental problems about such a horrible violation. The ones who compare it to FGM and campaign tirelessly to ban it.

I suppose you find such a group if they were cutting off earlobes, rather than simply poking a hole in them, if there was a danger of dying, and if there were frequent complications.

I had to have a second surgery in order to correct scaring from circumcision. That was so I could urinate properly. How many times have you heard of a child needing surgery in order for their ears to work properly after a piercing?

If you had, then you'd like be making a valid comparison.

I'm curious, what other parts can we cut off children in your estimation?

Inventing?

You plainly and clearly compared a circumcision SURGERY to cutting someone's hair. You only a few posts later accused me of making it up. Stop being so damn Jocabian. She said that an uncircumcised penis is not damaged, she didn't say that cutting the foreskin is just like cutting hair. She may be incorrect about the issue of damage, but what she is not doing is saying that circumcision and hair cuts are qualitatively equal.

If done legally and professionally and the result would be no worse than the result of my own circumcision, yes. But only in the same sense that I would support the practice of you being able to enroll your children in a private school run by an organized religion. I don't personally approve, but I don't personally disapprove so much as to say you wouldn't have the right.

You realize they don't know what the result will be beforehand.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

See, you're not the only person who has had a circumcision. There are plenty of children who have had a part cut from their body who had complications. In western countries, they are almost solely men.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing with a penis or a vagina, I am responding to you and your argument.

Can you prove that? Because there are some real dicks on the internet...

I suppose you find such a group if they were cutting off earlobes, rather than simply poking a hole in them, if there was a danger of dying, and if there were frequent complications.

I had to have a second surgery in order to correct scaring from circumcision. That was so I could urinate properly. How many times have you heard of a child needing surgery in order for their ears to work properly after a piercing?

None but then I've never heard of needing a second surgery after circumcision either. Apparently it can't be all that common either, eh?

If you had, then you'd like be making a valid comparison.

I'm curious, what other parts can we cut off children in your estimation?

I don't know, what other parts is it currently legal to do so? I can't help but notice that in the United States of America, male circumcision is not outlawed like FGM is or like lopping off earlobes is. Why is that, do you think?

I'm pretty pissed off that my mom pierced my ears when I was a baby. I don't know how traumatized I am, but I feel self conscious about the permanent scars on my ear lobes. It's not FGM, but it's not my genitals either.....I mean, like, it doesn't compare.

Well, so what, male circumcision is traumatic psychologically, causes PTSD, long-term stress and unhappiness, feelings of deep insecurity, shame, guilt, mistrust, violation of one's rights..... but only because it's in the pee-pee area?

I mean is this about violation of rights and person, or isn't it? I mean is it okay to MUTILATE children as long as it's in a place that grows back?

Um...how do you know the foreskin is not essential, or at least very important?

I said that I have never seen any difference in the apparent experience of the circumcised and uncircumcised men I've had sex with. That is because I have no way of ever comparing their experiences. First, because I don't keep all my lovers locked up in the same basement. Second, how would they even know? How do you measure relative levels of pleasure? How would a guy who was circumcised as an infant have any idea how much more or less he would enjoy sex if he had not been snipped?

Oops, I got sleepy and left out the "research seems to indicate" part I put in the, like, 47 other posts I've made on the subject so far. :p You're quite right, and I don't know that for sure. (Well, I do know it's not ESSENTIAL, since, y'know, I have personally witnessed circumcised guys having plenty of sexual pleasure.) I'm just going based on the studies I've seen, which mostly seemed to find that the foreskin didn't really matter a great deal either way as far as sexual pleasure was concerned.

And, to reiterate, if the studies ever seemed to point instead to circumcision actually making a difference for the worse, then I would be far more strongly against circumcising infants. It appears to me at the moment that there is one good argument on each side of the debate - on the "pro" side, it seems to offer some health benefits, and on the "anti" side, the impossibility of consent is obviously a big issue. I think the latter outweighs the former, but not by a huge margin. Adding another good argument to one of those sides would pretty obviously make a difference to my views. :)

Well, so what, male circumcision is traumatic psychologically, causes PTSD, long-term stress and unhappiness, feelings of deep insecurity, shame, guilt, mistrust, violation of one's rights..... but only because it's in the pee-pee area?

I mean is this about violation of rights and person, or isn't it? I mean is it okay to MUTILATE children as long as it's in a place that grows back?
I'm pretty anti-mutilating children. It's not something I do, it's not something I support.

Stop being so damn Jocabian. She said that an uncircumcised penis is not damaged, she didn't say that cutting the foreskin is just like cutting hair. She may be incorrect about the issue of damage, but what she is not doing is saying that circumcision and hair cuts are qualitatively equal.

She compared the damage of cutting off a healthy body part in a surgery to cutting off hair. I didn't act like she said they were exactly the same procedure. I said the damage isn't the same and I explained why. What is complicated about that.

For more evidence that the damage of a circumcision cannot be compared...

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

I attributed two things to her. One, that she compared cutting hair to circumcision. I quoted her doing so. Her comparison focused on the damage of a surgery with complication rates of 2 to 10% to cutting your hair. My reply specifically focused on the damage and how they aren't comparable. The second thing I attributed to her is defending a parent's choice in the matter which she also did. She specifically spoke to father having better incite into the matter.

What part of that assessment is inaccurate exactly?

None but then I've never heard of needing a second surgery after circumcision either. Apparently it can't be all that common either, eh?

Eh, only 2 to 10% of people have complications. That's okay with you?

I don't know, what other parts is it currently legal to do so? I can't help but notice that in the United States of America, male circumcision is not outlawed like FGM is or like lopping off earlobes is. Why is that, do you think?

You do realize it was okay in this country to hang black people if you owned them, but not white people. Why is that, do you think?

That it's legal isn't really relevant given we're arguing about why they should be. Circumcision is a common religious practice among the dominant religion of this country. That's why it's legal. It's a dominant cultural practice. That has nothing to do with how we should assess it, however.

Well, so what, male circumcision is traumatic psychologically, causes PTSD, long-term stress and unhappiness, feelings of deep insecurity, shame, guilt, mistrust, violation of one's rights..... but only because it's in the pee-pee area?


I don't remember being cut or have nightmares about it. Apparently to some posters I lost 25% of my length. If that were the case I missed my calling as a porn star.

She compared the damage of cutting off a healthy body part in a surgery to cutting off hair. I didn't act like she said they were exactly the same procedure. I said the damage isn't the same and I explained why. What is complicated about that.

For more evidence that the damage of a circumcision cannot be compared...

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

Devils advocate: Girl at my high school got her earlobe chopped off by a chatty stylist who wasn't paying attention to those shears...

...and how about straight razor accidents on guys getting a good, clean shave.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing with a penis or a vagina, I am responding to you and your argument.

And I think it's a little disturbing that you personify the genitals to the point where they have their own "cares..."



See this is what I mean. *You* don't care about context. Sure, the penis and vagina don't care about context either, but I do as a thinking and rational being. FGM is done to harm female children as part of a cultural practice of anti-woman tribal patriarchy. MGM is not. FGM is almost always harmful. MGM is almost never harmful.




None of the things you and the others have spoken of - trauma etc allegedly caused by circumcision - are necessary for circumcision to occur either. I can say this because I myself have not felt any one of those things and was circumcised.

Grrr it is in little pieces.


I'm not personifying anything Im pointing out that genitals do not have personalities and are unable to care about whether the person weilding the knife wants to cause harm.

Not every instance of female circumsision needs to be about causing harm to woman we can do it safely and for no good reason just like we often do male circumsision for no good reason.
I think you already understand that.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing with a penis or a vagina, I am responding to you and your argument.


See this is what I mean. *You* don't care about context. Sure, the penis and vagina don't care about context either, but I do as a thinking and rational being. FGM is done to harm female children as part of a cultural practice of anti-woman tribal patriarchy. MGM is not. FGM is almost always harmful. MGM is almost never harmful.

First off, I'm amazed at how many anthropologists there seem to be here. You know, experts in the cultures that practice FGM.

Yeah or how about, people claiming that FGM is always overtly/covertly or otherwise about misogyny and the intention to harm females, go ahead and provide sources? I'm getting a little tired of the idea that the intentions on one side are all evil, and on the other, pure in the extreme.




None of the things you and the others have spoken of - trauma etc allegedly caused by circumcision - are necessary for circumcision to occur either. I can say this because I myself have not felt any one of those things and was circumcised. There's no need for trauma during female circumcision either. Are those circumcisions now okay?

Removing the clit wouldn't stop the genitalia from being functional for reproduction, though - and sexual pleasure is not entirely contingent on it.

If we're going to say that those factors are enough to make male circumcision okay, wouldn't it be intellectually dishonest of us to demand special exceptions for female genital mutilations?

I was just commenting on that one part. The comparison of it. Clit .. penis, foreskin .. foreskin. Not clit and foreskin.

I don't agree with any circumcision just for the sake of it. I'm not involved in y'alls debate.. I just wanted to clarify that one part that caught my eye. I haven't been reading all of what you all are arguing.

I feel the general acceptance of it in males is a double standard.. that is a correct term for this right? But I can't equate removal of the entire clit to the removal of penile foreskin. I equate foreskin to foreskin.

And as for what sexual stimulation would happen without a clit.. I'd think not much. It is a major part of our junk.

Ok I wrote a lot more but deleted it.. ugh. I initially just wanted to comment on that one part.

Devils advocate: Girl at my high school got her earlobe chopped off by a chatty stylist who wasn't paying attention to those shears...

...and how about straight razor accidents on guys getting a good, clean shave.

And I heard about a guy getting his penis caught in a grinder. What does that have to do with anything?

I don't know, what other parts is it currently legal to do so? I can't help but notice that in the United States of America, male circumcision is not outlawed like FGM is or like lopping off earlobes is. Why is that, do you think? Because it's culturally acceptable? That's a weak, weak argument, speaking as someone with legal training.

First off, I'm amazed at how many anthropologists there seem to be here. You know, experts in the cultures that practice FGM.


Yeah I was shaking my head at that one too. Seems to me it's always the same ones that act like experts in other areas too. Don't know if you ever keep track of that but I find it amusing.

And I heard about a guy getting his penis caught in a grinder. What does that have to do with anything?

Well depends really. Was it the foreskin that actually got caught and pulled the rest in? I mean it could be relevant. ;)

And I heard about a guy getting his penis caught in a grinder. What does that have to do with anything?

Isn't it obvious?

I'm trying to menace the flow of the thread, in a Hairless Kitten sort of way.

First off, I'm amazed at how many anthropologists there seem to be here. You know, experts in the cultures that practice FGM.

Yeah or how about, people claiming that FGM is always overtly/covertly or otherwise about misogyny and the intention to harm females, go ahead and provide sources? I'm getting a little tired of the idea that the intentions on one side are all evil, and on the other, pure in the extreme.


There's no need for trauma during female circumcision either. Are those circumcisions now okay?

For the record, even if perfectly safe I wholeheartedly decry any intentional and permanent alteration to a child for cosmetic reasons or unsupported and convenient medical reasons. If you tattoo your child's face, I'd consider that abusive, frankly.

Obviously, I consider moreso when the alteration involves a surgery and the danger of complications.

Because it's culturally acceptable? That's a weak, weak argument, speaking as someone with legal training.

Isn't that actually a defense of FGM in the countries that perform it?

Oops, I got sleepy and left out the "research seems to indicate" part I put in the, like, 47 other posts I've made on the subject so far. :p You're quite right, and I don't know that for sure. (Well, I do know it's not ESSENTIAL, since, y'know, I have personally witnessed circumcised guys having plenty of sexual pleasure.) I'm just going based on the studies I've seen, which mostly seemed to find that the foreskin didn't really matter a great deal either way as far as sexual pleasure was concerned.

And, to reiterate, if the studies ever seemed to point instead to circumcision actually making a difference for the worse, then I would be far more strongly against circumcising infants. It appears to me at the moment that there is one good argument on each side of the debate - on the "pro" side, it seems to offer some health benefits, and on the "anti" side, the impossibility of consent is obviously a big issue. I think the latter outweighs the former, but not by a huge margin. Adding another good argument to one of those sides would pretty obviously make a difference to my views. :)
No, no, I get all that. What I meant was that, since circumcision is done WAY before a guy ever has sex (typically), how can we ever know that a circumcised guy's 11 on the 1-10 pleasure scale isn't equivalent to an uncircumcised guy's 6 on the same scale, i.e. the pleasure he could have had, if he'd never been snipped?

Or vice versa? Or no difference at all?

I mean, to me, it seems a nonsensical comparison to make, because how can it ever be measured accurately? How can we ever say that snipping the foreskin made this much difference to the sexual experience of this man?

I also don't see circumcision as the atrocious mutilation that some people think of it as. But my view is hardly worth much, now is it? I'm not a guy. What would I know about it? The truth is that circumcised men typically can have and enjoy sex very much the same, seemingly, as uncircumcised men can, so to me, it may be mutilation, but it is minor enough not to get all worked up about. But again, it's not my winkie getting snipped, so who cares what I think?

I said that I would not have a male child of mine circumcised not because I think it's so horrible, but rather because I think it is unnecessary, and I see no need to fix something that isn't broken.

Of course, I don't even have pierced ears. I don't like fussing with stuff unnecessarily.

She compared the damage of cutting off a healthy body part in a surgery to cutting off hair. I didn't act like she said they were exactly the same procedure. I said the damage isn't the same and I explained why. What is complicated about that.

For more evidence that the damage of a circumcision cannot be compared...

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

I attributed two things to her. One, that she compared cutting hair to circumcision. I quoted her doing so. Her comparison focused on the damage of a surgery with complication rates of 2 to 10% to cutting your hair. My reply specifically focused on the damage and how they aren't comparable. The second thing I attributed to her is defending a parent's choice in the matter which she also did. She specifically spoke to father having better incite into the matter.

What part of that assessment is inaccurate exactly?
All of it, jackass. She said that cutting her hair would not justify someone calling her hair 'damaged'. Just like she believes that calling a circumcised penis 'damaged' is not justified. Damage implies that it doesn't work, something is broken, something is wrong. While that may be the case in a very few situations, in the main, the penis continues to work just fine. You can stick to arguing with her that the label of 'damaged' should in fact apply, but harping on the idea that she somehow cold-heartedly said that circumcision is JUST LIKE A HAIRCUT is typically annoying of you. No, you aren't saying she claimed it was the same sort of procedure, you are claiming she said the level of damage is roughly the same (hardly any). That's not what she actually said, no matter how much you twist it.

If you actually wanted to debate people, you'd stop making shit up, and try to understand the concepts they are actually attempting to communicate with you.

First off, I'm amazed at how many anthropologists there seem to be here. You know, experts in the cultures that practice FGM.

I don't have to be an expert or an anthropologist to be familiar with FGM enough to discuss it.

Yeah or how about, people claiming that FGM is always overtly/covertly or otherwise about misogyny and the intention to harm females

I never made such silly absolute claims, so why would I defend them?

, go ahead and provide sources? I'm getting a little tired of the idea that the intentions on one side are all evil, and on the other, pure in the extreme.

Well, if you were truly unaware, I can show plenty of evidence that supports a misogynistic worldview which legitimizes violence towards women (including FGM). But you're not, and I for one would like to see something comparable for "MGM." I want to see the men living in chattel slavery, circumcised so they wouldn't become promiscuous and unfaithful to their spouse/owner. The "evil" male circumcisions.

There's no need for trauma during female circumcision either. Are those circumcisions now okay?

Wait, are you claiming that FGM isn't traumatic?