NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I at least have the balls to say, what I know about FGM is extremely biased, anecdotal, or from culturally loaded research. I've looked into the subject in some depth and I still have to admit that. Apparently, however, there are people here who have made a life's work of understanding the cultural implications of FGM and are willing to share their knowledge with us. How wonderful.

Well depends really. Was it the foreskin that actually got caught and pulled the rest in? I mean it could be relevant. ;)
Ooh, nice thinking! :D

Well depends really. Was it the foreskin that actually got caught and pulled the rest in? I mean it could be relevant. ;)
All right, you've convinced me. I'm changing my stance, and now Muravyets Junior is gettin' snipped. It's for his own good! :D

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

Hence my labelling it as a weak argument. What your society thinks is okay, it will legalise. Legalisation doesn't actually make it okay.

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.

Sounds like we pretty much agree. :)

It's fair to point out that when you've only experienced one or the other, self-evaluation can only go so far. I wonder if there have been studies involving fMRI or something similar, to actually compare how much the "pleasure" areas of the brain light up during sex/orgasm for circumcised and uncircumcised men? That would be kinda interesting to see.

...I am slightly afraid of what Google will provide for me if I actually try searching for "fMRI circumcised orgasm" or something, though. ("Oh dear GOD what is he doing to that MRI machine?") :p

All right, you've convinced me. I'm changing my stance, and now Muravyets Junior is gettin' snipped. It's for his own good! :D
Only if Jr. is prone to stick Jr. Jr. into a grinder, though!

Sounds like we pretty much agree. :)

It's fair to point out that when you've only experienced one or the other, self-evaluation can only go so far. I wonder if there have been studies involving fMRI or something similar, to actually compare how much the "pleasure" areas of the brain light up during sex/orgasm for circumcised and uncircumcised men? That would be kinda interesting to see.

...I am slightly afraid of what Google will provide for me if I actually try searching for "fMRI circumcised orgasm" or something, though. ("Oh dear GOD what is he doing to that MRI machine?") :p
That's, uh, Rule No. 30-something of the Handbook of Net Memes, right? ;)

Only if Jr. is prone to stick Jr. Jr. into a grinder, though!
We're talking about a hypothetical kid of mine. I ain't taking any chances. ;)

I don't have to be an expert or an anthropologist to be familiar with FGM enough to discuss it.When you make statements about the cultural motivations for it, you should have some understanding of the cultures in question.

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

Oh lord, you're making me pull a Jocabia:


FGM is done to harm female children as part of a cultural practice of anti-woman tribal patriarchy. MGM is not.
Sounds pretty absolute. There are no qualifiers like 'usually' or 'often' or even 'amost always'. Perhaps you misspoke?


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.

I'd actually like to see the stats that show that the 130 million women who have experienced FGM (2 million per year) lived or live in chattel slavery, and were circumcised to prevent infidelity towards their spouse/owner. The loaded language you use, and the sweeping generalisations you rely upon, ignore the varied cultural forms of FGM, the variations between urban and rural practices, the historical evolution of theory related to FGM, and the overall social impact on circumcised women in various areas.

It's a much more complicated issue than you make it out to be, and you do the cause no favours when you spout ignorance as though it were truth.



Wait, are you claiming that FGM isn't traumatic?

You yourself said that FGM is 'usually' traumatic, which implies it isn't always. Were it practiced safely, and at infancy (as with men), it would be no more traumatic than a male circumcision.

It doesn't make either practice right, now does it?

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.

And her argument that the surgery doesn't damage the penis requires us to ignore that a healthy body part is destroyed permanently and that we lose the use of it. It's not an apt comparison.

I didn't say she said it was "just like" anything. Now who's making shit up. What I said is that she compared it. You're saying the same. It's a fact that she compared the two. She was speaking as to the damage, quite obviously. We agree on that. I pointed out why it should be considered damaging to force an unnecessary surgery that removes a healthy body part on someone. No more. No less.

I understand the concept. She doesn't believe it should be called mutilation. That's the concept she's trying to convey. The problem is the comparison she used to defend that point is silly.

oddly enough stumbleon brought up something sort of related..
http://1.media.tumblr.com/soBwCdeuhnje0gbsouXF6GMSo1_400.jpg

Hence my labelling it as a weak argument. What your society thinks is okay, it will legalise. Legalisation doesn't actually make it okay.

I know. I was just enjoy standing on your shoulders. It gives me a better view down your shirt.

I understand the concept. She doesn't believe it should be called mutilation. That's the concept she's trying to convey. The problem is the comparison she used to defend that point is silly.
Sounds a lot less like THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD, doesn't it?

Glad you've calmed down, freak-out boy. Now wipe the spittle off your shirt.

For the record? No, I don't support FGM. I just think people who talk shit about a subject should talk educated shit. Nothing makes you look worse than arguing stupid points easily refuted by a proponent with half a brain.

I however reserve the right to talk shit in a flippant manner any time I like, even if I know nothing about the subject in question.

Hypocrisy noted, accepted, and embraced.

Sounds a lot less like THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD, doesn't it?

Glad you've calmed down, freak-out boy. Now wipe the spittle off your shirt.

Um, did you see which of us replied in all caps?

My reply was simply to point out that it's an invalid comparison. I pointed out why. I'd love to see exactly where I freaked out, however. I am curious where you got that impression from.

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.

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.

Are you sure you didn't confuse the two of us? That was actually my first post in the thread she replied to in all caps.

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

No, it is comparable. Male circumcision is generally performed on small babies for bullshit religious reasons without them having any say in the matter. It may not be as physically destructive, but that doesn't make it any less mutilation.

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

Good for you. Glad that you were happy about a surgical procedure being performed on you for no decent reason and without your permission or even ability to consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah Some of these practices certainly sound quite violent and cruel and dangerous to me.


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

I have no issue whatsoever with adult males getting circumcised if they so wish. But to do it to babies for whatever reason the parents wish, outside of true medical necessity is just plain wrong, inappropriate and abusive.

Im perfectly happy being circumcised. My penis has received rave reviews so who am i to argue with success?

Um, did you see which of us replied in all caps?

My reply was simply to point out that it's an invalid comparison. I pointed out why. I'd love to see exactly where I freaked out, however. I am curious where you got that impression from.

From the spiteful, vindictive tone you get when you start pulling up people's posts, dissecting them, and inserting a pin into them like you were attaching a bug to cardboard.

Your reply wasn't simply anything and you know it. People don't get THAT annoyed with you for no reason. Not as many of them as have, and not as consistently. As in, the problem isn't not-you. :p

Okay, go away now.

No, it is comparable. Male circumcision is generally performed on small babies for bullshit religious reasons without them having any say in the matter. It may not be as physically destructive, but that doesn't make it any less mutilation.

Yeah, and abortion is performed on small babies for bullshit liberal reasons without them having any say in the matter. It may not be as physically destructive as, say, the Holocaust, but that's no reason to refrain from calling abortion the Unheard Holocaust!

Good for you. Glad that you were happy about a surgical procedure being performed on you for no decent reason and without your permission or even ability to consent.

Thanks, I'm glad to be part of the vast majority.

I have no issue whatsoever with adult males getting circumcised if they so wish. But to do it to babies for whatever reason the parents wish, outside of true medical necessity is just plain wrong, inappropriate and abusive.

So, you would say then that I am a victim of abuse, that my parents and doctor abused me?

I suppose the fact that I don't agree is a symptom of my abuse, yes? Clearly I must be in denial for not sharing your special opinion?

From the spiteful, vindictive tone you get when you start pulling up people's posts, dissecting them, and inserting a pin into them like you were attaching a bug to cardboard.

Your reply wasn't simply anything and you know it. People don't get THAT annoyed with you for no reason. Not as many of them as have, and not as consistently. As in, the problem isn't not-you. :p

Okay, go away now.

Seriously, I think you mixed us up and you won't admit it. One of us was actually freaking out. It pretty obviously wasn't me.

You might notice people also get pissed at you whether you're pissed or not. Your style of argument is caustic, as is mine. I admit it, as do you. That doesn't mean I'm "freaking out".

It simply means that absent my tone of voice (people generally laugh during our arguments in real life), my particular way of forming arguments comes across very harshly. That doesn't change the value of my point, which was that the arguments being made for not calling it mutilation are not good arguments for the reasons I've stated. The comparisons are bad comparisons. The claims that it should somehow be considered okay so long as we can't prove it does a harm to function and so long as we ignore the complications is silly and I'm going to treat it as such.

Yeah, and abortion is performed on small babies for bullshit liberal reasons without them having any say in the matter. It may not be as physically destructive as, say, the Holocaust, but that's no reason to refrain from calling abortion the Unheard Holocaust!

Well except for the lack of small babies in abortion, that's a perfectly rational post.

However, it might be better if you not just attempt to derail the thread just because you can't seem to make a defensible argument. Abortion is irrelevant to the point at hand.

However, it might be better if you not just attempt to derail the thread just because you can't seem to make a defensible argument. Abortion is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Why? In both cases a bunch of cells that could eventually become a consenting adult loses cells, one just leads to death and the other to possible damage for life. Is there really a difference?

No, it is comparable. Male circumcision is generally performed on small babies for bullshit religious reasons without them having any say in the matter. It may not be as physically destructive, but that doesn't make it any less mutilation.

Good for you. Glad that you were happy about a surgical procedure being performed on you for no decent reason and without your permission or even ability to consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah Some of these practices certainly sound quite violent and cruel and dangerous to me.

I have no issue whatsoever with adult males getting circumcised if they so wish. But to do it to babies for whatever reason the parents wish, outside of true medical necessity is just plain wrong, inappropriate and abusive.
K, to argue in the alternative.

If I belonged to a culture that practiced circumcision, male or female...and I was not circumcised...I would probably feel pretty unwhole until I was able to reach the age where I got to choose to do it. Now, women might not be jumping in line to get FGM, but considering men who convert to certain religions willingly undergo the procedure, I can't imagine too many honestly faithful men shying away from it.

To a certain extent all parents make cultural and religious decisions for their children. It would piss me off beyond belief to be told I couldn't teach my children aboriginal traditions/spirituality. They might witness a sundance, which is not a pretty sight...what if that were labelled abusive?

If my people practiced circumcision traditionally (they don't), I would feel pretty strongly about raising my children with their cultural identity, that included.

I wouldn't make this choice for my children, but then again, it's not my culture, and the medical reasons aren't compelling IMO.

Why? In both cases a bunch of cells that could eventually become a consenting adult loses cells, one just leads to death and the other to possible damage for life. Is there really a difference?

So are you saying that because children may not become consenting adults we can do what we likewith them?

Seriously, I think you mixed us up and you won't admit it. One of us was actually freaking out. It pretty obviously wasn't me.

You might notice people also get pissed at you whether you're pissed or not. Your style of argument is caustic, as is mine. I admit it, as do you. That doesn't mean I'm "freaking out". Yeah, 'tever.

Move on.

Why? In both cases a bunch of cells that could eventually become a consenting adult loses cells, one just leads to death and the other to possible damage for life. Is there really a difference?

Because in one case there is no person who has been harmed. In the other, there is a person that is harmed.

Similarly, it's perfectly okay with me if today you draft a contract selling a child you don't have and won't have into slavery. Go to town. I don't care.

However, once you sell an ACTUAL child into slavery, I have an issue with it.

I'm very odd.

Well except for the lack of small babies in abortion, that's a perfectly rational post.


Some would say that calling fetuses 'small babies' or abortion 'murder' is a subjective matter of interpretation, just like calling circumcision 'mutilation' or a circumcised penis 'imperfect.'

However, it might be better if you not just attempt to derail the thread just because you can't seem to make a defensible argument. Abortion is irrelevant to the point at hand.

1. I can and have made defensible arguments, and your need to proclaim victory and dismiss me as somehow incapable is in poor taste.

2. Abortion is not irrelevant. Some people have the same attitude about abortion as some people do about male circumcision, and give the same sorts of accusatory, emotive arguments. And people who say "abortion is murder" are every bit as wrong as those here saying that male circumcision is "abuse," and for pretty much the same reason.

3. Your non-argument that I am "trying to derail the thread" is just that, a non-argument, baseless, and seems to be little more than an attempt at dismissal. Given how you've treated some of the other posters you disagree with in this thread, I can only imagine your behavior will not improve. Good day.

Yeah, 'tever.

Move on.

Don't worry. I'll still let you fantasize about riding me till my genitals fall off.

Some would say that calling fetuses 'small babies' or abortion 'murder' is a subjective matter of interpretation, just like calling circumcision 'mutilation' or a circumcised penis 'imperfect.'



1. I can and have made defensible arguments, and your need to proclaim victory and dismiss me as somehow incapable is in poor taste.

2. Abortion is not irrelevant. Some people have the same attitude about abortion as some people do about male circumcision, and give the same sorts of accusatory, emotive arguments. And people who say "abortion is murder" are every bit as wrong as those here saying that male circumcision is "abuse," and for pretty much the same reason.

3. Your non-argument that I am "trying to derail the thread" is just that, a non-argument, baseless, and seems to be little more than an attempt at dismissal. Given how you've treated some of the other posters you disagree with in this thread, I can only imagine your behavior will not improve. Good day.

For all you know, the people arguing against circumcision are also against abortion. They are not related.

That some people support abortion has nothing to do with whether or not some people support circumcision. They aren't related and your attempt to relate them is a hijack. They are as much a hijack as pretty much anything you could come up with. For all you know, I could equally defend such arguments for abortion. The issue is that you'd have to, you know, start an abortion thread to find out, since this one isn't.

If you'd like to discuss whether or not abortion is actually "murder" then start a thread.

If you'd like to discuss whether they are "babies". Start a thread.

However, without debating the actual merits of abortion and actively comparing them, there is no way to address your comparison. Worse, even if we did that and I got you to agree to the use of those terms on the other subject or to not agree or to get us to agree on any position regarding that whatsoever still wouldn't change the value of using the term mutilation to refer to cutting off a healthy body part.

Don't worry. I'll still let you fantasize about riding me till my genitals fall off.

I'm fairly certain any image she has of separating you from your penis has absolutely nothing to do with ever having sex with you.

Although the fact that this is the image that comes to mind for you does go a long way of explaining your posting style to Neesika, Poli and Murv. It's been bothering me for a while, trying to put my finger on what it reminded me of, until now. i've seen this type of behavior before.

From prepubescent boys with schoolyard crushes pinching the girls at recess.

And it's high time you grew the fuck out of it.

*laughs so hard she farts*

I'm fairly certain any image she has of separating you from your penis has absolutely nothing to do with ever having sex with you.

Although the fact that this is the image that comes to mind for you does go a long way of explaining your posting style to Neesika, Poli and Murv. It's been bothering me for a while, trying to put my finger on what it reminded me of, until now. i've seen this type of behavior before.

From prepubescent boys with schoolyard crushes pinching the girls at recess.

And it's high time you grew the fuck out of it.

Uh-huh. This is relevant, how?

My posting style toward them and toward others really doesn't vary. Which is why men are equally likely to get annoyed. I do find it amusing how the people lecturing me for being caustic are also known for being wildly caustic. In fact, being caustic is actually why your name starts with "Neo", no?

Incidentally, you should probably do some research into our history before such statements. Making statements after you educate yourself is usually a better idea than doing so before, but it's really up to you.

I'm fairly certain any image she has of separating you from your penis has absolutely nothing to do with ever having sex with you.

Although the fact that this is the image that comes to mind for you does go a long way of explaining your posting style to Neesika, Poli and Murv. It's been bothering me for a while, trying to put my finger on what it reminded me of, until now. i've seen this type of behavior before.

From prepubescent boys with schoolyard crushes pinching the girls at recess.

And it's high time you grew the fuck out of it.

Must....keep...straight......face....listening...to...Neo....lecture...about....caustic...posting... styles....

For all you know, the people arguing against circumcision are also against abortion. They are not related.

They probably do. but abortion has a much better claim to being like "male genital mutilations" than hair, finger nail and what not cutting, piecing of the ear or other body part, female genital mutilations and the half dozen other things that have come up before. They both entail the removal of cells that last for "life" and may or may not have actual basis for health or other reasons and they both generally don't have the consent of those there preformed on...

Not sure how you boys are getting 'caustic' out of infantile, but okay :P

They probably do. but abortion has a much better claim to being like "male genital mutilations" than hair, finger nail and what not cutting, piecing of the ear or other body part, female genital mutilations and the half dozen other things that have come up before. They both entail the removal of cells that last for "life" and may or may not have actual basis for health or other reasons and they both generally don't have the consent of those there preformed on...

Oh, I agree. That's why we shouldn't perform abortions against the will of the patient, the pregnant female.

They both entail the removal of cells that last for "life" and may or may not have actual basis for health or other reasons and they both generally don't have the consent of those there preformed on...
But in the case of circumcision, those cells are removed from the body without the consent of the boy - whereas in the case of abortion, those cells are removed from the body with the woman's consent.

Not sure how you boys are getting 'caustic' out of infantile, but okay :P

Choose something else. Sarcastic. We all qualify. Condescending. Again, it's all of us. Mean. Agressive. Pedantic. Harsh. Really there is no way to describe my posts that doesn't equally apply to both of you.

It would be one thing if it was TCT lecturing me, but seriously you were the poster-child for being less than patient with people you didn't agree with when people were still getting mad at me for coming across as totally sterilized. NA too.

NO to the abortion debate!!!

Must....keep...straight......face....listening...to...Neo....lecture...about....caustic...posting... styles....

Oh, I have no problem with people being caustic. As long as, in addition to being caustic, they're actually right.

See, being caustic but right means you're still right. And then no matter how mad people get at you for being caustic, no matter how infuriated you make them, you're still right.

So few people manage that second part, but it really is crucial. I'm not lecturing anyone about being caustic. No no, far from it. I'm lecturing people about being caustic, immature, and wrong.

See if he were right that would be a whole other issue. But he's not.

No to the abortion debate!!!

Come on, you know you want to have a resounding debate that will last another 10 pages! Even though no one will be convinced those of the other side and it will degrade to personnel attacks and what not in two pages(or less) and everyone is probably all pro choice already anyway.

Though talking about NeoArt would be interesting too, nah...

No to the abortion debate!!!

In this case, I am definitely not pro-choice.

Just to be clear, by the way, I wouldn't make a similarly sexual joke toward either Poli or Mura on these forums.

Choose something else. Sarcastic. We all qualify. Condescending. Again, it's all of us. Mean. Agressive. Pedantic. Harsh. Really there is no way to describe my posts that doesn't equally apply to both of you.

Between the three of us, only one of us is secretly hoping that one of the remaining will someday want to make out with him.

I'm a sarcastic aggressive mean pedantic and harsh asshole because I can be. Because I'm very rarely wrong. When you manage to reach the second qualifier, then you can make fair use of the first.

One earns his right to be an asshole based on the weight of his abilities. If you think the poorly reasoned overly emotive crap you've spewed out pretending to be an argument qualifies you, you're sorely mistaken.

Oh, I have no problem with people being caustic. As long as, in addition to being caustic, they're actually right.

See, being caustic but right means you're still right. And then no matter how mad people get at you for being caustic, no matter how infuriating they make you, you're still right.

So few people manage, but it really is crucial. I'm not lecturing anyone about being caustic. No no, far from it. I'm lecturing people about being caustic, immature, and wrong.

See if he were right that would be a whole other issue. But he's not.

So if your only concern is with being right why address style at all? Certainly your point can be made just as effectively without the red herring no?

Oh, I have no problem with people being caustic. As long as, in addition to being caustic, they're actually right.

See, being caustic but right means you're still right. And then no matter how mad people get at you for being caustic, no matter how infuriating they make you, you're still right.

So few people manage, but it really is crucial. I'm not lecturing anyone about being caustic. No no, far from it. I'm lecturing people about being caustic, immature, and wrong.

See if he were right that would be a whole other issue. But he's not.

Well, gosh, when you make such a clear and convincing argument, how could I not agree?

If only someone would have thought of the ol' "but he's wrong" argument these threads would be so much shorter.

So if your only concern is with being right why address style at all? Certainly your point can be made just as effectively without the red herring no?

Because it's totally valid to attack the poster rather than make an actual argument. See, if he makes an argument I can actually refute it. If he says I'm infantile and compares me to boys pulling pigtails, then even if I argue I'm not making my point anymore, now am I?

I'm a sarcastic aggressive mean pedantic and harsh asshole because I can be. Because I'm very rarely wrong. When you manage to reach the second qualifier, then you can make fair use of the first.

One earns his right to be an asshole based on the weight of his abilities. If you think the poorly reasoned overly emotive crap you've spewed out pretending to be an argument qualifies you, you're sorely mistaken.

No one ever earns the right to be an asshole. Thats like saying youve earned the right to mug someone.

Between the three of us, only one of us is secretly hoping that one of the remaining will someday want to make out with him.

I'm a sarcastic aggressive mean pedantic and harsh asshole because I can be. Because I'm very rarely wrong. When you manage to reach the second qualifier, then you can make fair use of the first.

One earns his right to be an asshole based on the weight of his abilities. If you think the poorly reasoned overly emotive crap you've spewed out pretending to be an argument qualifies you, you're sorely mistaken.

The irony.

Well, gosh, when you make such a clear and convincing argument, how could I not agree?

Oh please, don't pretend you have any interest in argument. Don't pretend you have any interest in debate. Your entire style and history on this board shows you're not interested in anything close.

You don't present reasoned arguments. You don't present nuanced issues that demonstrate a willingness to discuss.

You cherry pick lines, misconstrue quotes, delve obsessively into the minutia of posting histories in desperate attempts to construct nonsensical and idiotic strawmen because you can't actually handle responding to actual well reasoned arguments. There's no debate there, no substance to it. Any attempt I'd make to respond to you would be met with some over the top emotive bullshit, intentional misconstruing of my words, or six hours of going through my post history trying to find one sentence from one post if, taken alone and without context, might seem to suggest, if read in one particular way, something vaguely opposed to what I'm saying now.

That's not argument. That's not debate. It's contemptuous intellectual cowardice. And it deserves no further response than to be called on it.

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

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

In my state I was the one who had to render consent for treatment when I got braces. The periodontist also would have stopped treatment any time I asked.

No one ever earns the right to be an asshole. Thats like saying youve earned the right to mug someone.

I think I'm not supposed to be laughing. Apparently, I want to make out pretty much everyone I disagree with.

The funny part is that according to his reasoning as long as a person is not dishonest they are ALWAYS going to feel they have the right to be an asshole.

So if your only concern is with being right why address style at all? Certainly your point can be made just as effectively without the red herring no?

Actually, I do it as a favor to you, to be honest. That way, when I show you up in your own thread you have a way to distract people from the fact that you didn't even comprehend your own source material by pointing out how mean I am to you.

If I actually did it while being nice, you wouldn't have a curtain to hide behind. Then where would you be? Honestly, you should thank me.

Actually, I do it as a favor to you, to be honest. That way, when I show you up in your own thread you have a way to distract people from the fact that you didn't even comprehend your own source material by pointing out how mean I am to you.

If I actually did it while being nice, you wouldn't have a curtain to hide behind. Then where would you be? Honestly, you should thank me.

Facts are facts are facts. Im happy to address and debate any and all of them. You will never see me hide from anything. Many times i have admitted when i was wrong. Its a human thing. Asshole however is a negative personality trait that requires years of therapy to cure.

And please, stop doing me any favors.

Oh please, don't pretend you have any interest in argument. Don't pretend you have any interest in debate. Your entire style and history on this board shows you're not interested in anything close.

You don't present reasoned arguments. You don't present nuanced issues that demonstrate a willingness to discuss.

You cherry pick lines, misconstrue quotes, delve obsessively into the minutia of posting histories in desperate attempts to construct nonsensical and idiotic strawmen because you can't actually handle responding to actual well reasoned arguments. There's no debate there, no substance to it. Any attempt I'd make to respond to you would be met with some over the top emotive bullshit, intentional misconstruing of my words, or six hours of going through my post history trying to find one sentence from one post if, taken alone and without context, might seem to suggest, if read in one particular way, something vaguely opposed to what I'm saying now.

That's not argument. That's not debate. It's contemptuous intellectual cowardice. And it deserves no further response than to be called on it.

Again, the irony isn't missed by me. It's probably coincidence that you're "concern" with my style appeared when I argued with your girlfriend and your ex. I do find it amusing that you've gotten so wildly upset when people have brought up personal feelings, valid or invalid, regarding you and another poster while attacking you. It seems you're hoping it will equally upset me. No such luck.

This thread certainly went somewhere else entirely, didn't it?

This thread certainly went somewhere else entirely, didn't it?

Well, to be fair, we're all still talking about damaged penises.

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.

Yes. Exactly. If I am against something, it must be equally horrific as something else I am against. I'm against vandalism and rape, therefore vandalism is just as bad as rape. Excellent bit of logic, there.

Again, the irony isn't missed by me. It's probably coincidence that you're "concern" with my style appeared when I argued with your girlfriend and your ex. I do find it amusing that you've gotten so wildly upset when people have brought up personal feelings, valid or invalid, regarding you and another poster while attacking you. It seems you're hoping it will equally upset me. No such luck. I suppose, though, it helps one remain calm when such speculation isn't accurate.

Yeah, making wild accusations about my personal life and insinuating that I can't disagree with you based on my own reasoning is really showing just how calm and collected you are.

But don't worry, keep telling us all how "calm" you are, how much you're "laughing" about it. I believe you, really, I do. You're the master of calmness. A sea of tranquility. Which is why you make such efforts to point it out. To everyone. Multiple times.

Just remember though, it's not us you have to convince. It's yourself.

This thread certainly went somewhere else entirely, didn't it?

How much more can you say about penis slicing after 37 pages ;)

The last time my wife and I held hands was when we had our son circumcised. It hurt him so much, even with the anesthetic. I'm not sure we did the right thing or the wrong thing, but after having watched it, I'm not sure I'd do it again.

I don't get to see either of them very much anymore. Because of my condition, its been agreed the boy shouldn't know me. So I'll probably never be able to ask him if he was okay with it.

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.

This is what I was trying to say using the tonsilectomy analogy, which I think works better because it's a permanent removal of a body part. I don't think having tonsils removed leaves one "damaged" or "unwhole". I also don't believe they should be routinely removed for no reason other than it will prevent an infection they may or may not get. It's traumatic (in my mind). It's not abusive (in my mind). There are risks to both surgeries. Most have no complications, and everything continues to function just fine.

They might witness a sundance, which is not a pretty sight...what if that were labelled abusive?

Now I want to know what goes on at these sundances.

Now I want to know what goes on at these sundances.

lots of bad movies. Though Steve Buscemi is sometimes in some of them, and he's fantastic

lots of bad movies. Though Steve Buscemi is sometimes in some of them, and he's fantastic

Did that film "Man Called Horse" depict (sort of) a sundance?

Or am I thinking of another movie...

Did that film "Man Called Horse" depict (sort of) a sundance?

Or am I thinking of another movie...

I think you're thinking of "A Tribe Called Quest"

Yeah, making wild accusations about my personal life and insinuating that I can't disagree with you based on my own reasoning is really showing just how calm and collected you are.

But don't worry, keep telling us all how "calm" you are, how much you're "laughing" about it. I believe you, really, I do. You're the master of calmness. A sea of tranquility. Which is why you make such efforts to point it out. To everyone. Multiple times.

Just remember though, it's not us you have to convince. It's yourself.

Um, you do realize that you entered the threads making claims that my interactions with another poster are a result of me speculated-by-you relationship or desired relationship to that poster? I simply pointed out that you've gotten very incensed when people have done the same to you. Bringing up such silliness is innappropriate to do to me. It was innapropriate when others did it to you. (Yes, I realize the last sentence you quoted appeared to be about you rather than me. I don't actually know whether there was any truth to the speculation about you and I don't actually believe it's relevant. I do think it's easier not to get mad when there is no basis for the claim, but I don't think that it means one wouldn't necessarily.)

Really, if you don't like me so much, you're welcome to use the ignore button. I'd lie and say I won't mind, but you actually one of the few posters I enjoy talking to off-forum. I realize there is some fairly recent history here that might be making this seem like something it isn't, though, and, frankly, you have perfectly accessible ways to attack me where you won't be violating forum rules. You should probably use them, instead.

I don't get to see either of them very much anymore. Because of my condition, its been agreed the boy shouldn't know me. So I'll probably never be able to ask him if he was okay with it.

They have a medical diagnosis now for posting too much on NSG? :eek:

Now I want to know what goes on at these sundances.

Seriously? Well the hardcore practicioners still pierce the skin and are tethered during the dance. Even those who don't pierce, dance until they fall. The ceremony was banned until the last few decades.

I think you're thinking of "A Tribe Called Quest"

I read once that if you're a Gentile and you want to become a Jew, and you've already been circumcised, they prick your...well, your prick, to draw a little drop of blood to mark your covenant.

I don't know if its true.

They have a medical diagnosis now for posting too much on NSG? :eek:

Heh, yeah. I had to have Jhahannam and Baldwin for Christ surgically removed...Ghost of Ayn Rand was killed with antibiotics.

Just because this is a thread about dicks, it doesn't mean you boys need to whip yours out and compare them.

Honest to god, I spend my whole day separating squabbling boys and telling them to ignore each other, and then I come home and get on NSG. >_<

Well except for the lack of small babies in abortion, that's a perfectly rational post.

However, it might be better if you not just attempt to derail the thread just because you can't seem to make a defensible argument. Abortion is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Just the point I was going to make. Thanks. :D

I read once that if you're a Gentile and you want to become a Jew, and you've already been circumcised, they prick your...well, your prick, to draw a little drop of blood to mark your covenant.

I don't know if its true.

for the orthodoxy it is at least. The idea is that the circumcision must occur through the binds of rabbinical law. If you've already been...snipped, there's nothing to cut, so the cut is symbolic.

Abstracting from the conversation a moment, I find the judaism to be a fascinating study, just because as a faith it is, even now in a modernized era, so heavily symbolic and ritualistic.

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.

Thank you. Finally a medical reason that is actually *relevant* for a baby.

Okay, this is kind of distasteful, but its one guy's view (supposedly, he might have been taking the piss).

An old Filipino guy told me that "In your country, there is so much oral sex, and there's less smeggy stuff in a circumcised penis, so I think you do it for your women".

I really have no idea.

They have a medical diagnosis now for posting too much on NSG? :eek:

I can't quit cold turkey. I'm trying to slowly ween myself off.

Hammurab is chronic, though.

Thank you. Finally a medical reason that is actually *relevant* for a baby.

I actually question the use of the words "slightly lower risk". Isn't going from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000 cutting the risk to a tenth?

Reducing the risk to one tenth of what it was doesn't seem "slightly" lowering the risk. It actually seems to substantially lower the risk.

Just because this is a thread about dicks, it doesn't mean you boys need to whip yours out and compare them.

Honest to god, I spend my whole day separating squabbling boys and telling them to ignore each other, and then I come home and get on NSG. >_<

Honestly, I've always wondered how grade school teachers can stand to come here after work. :p

I can't quit cold turkey. I'm trying to slowly ween myself off.

Hammurab is chronic, though.

The clinicians use the term "intractable, unresponsive to medication".

Baldwin for Christ thought he was on the chronic once, when he smelled something at Steven Baldwin's Christian Rock Stryper Concert and Silk Screen T-Shirt Mobile Kiosk Business Seminar, but it turned out someone just over microwaved a hotpocket.

The clinicians use the term "intractable, unresponsive to medication".

Baldwin for Christ thought he was on the chronic once, when he smelled something at Steven Baldwin's Christian Rock Stryper Concert and Silk Screen T-Shirt Mobile Kiosk Business Seminar, but it turned out someone just over microwaved a hotpocket.

dude, for the last time. a "hot box" is not the same thing as a "hot pocket". Get it straight.

And tell BfC to stop holding out.

I actually question the use of the words "slightly lower risk". Isn't going from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000 cutting the risk to a tenth?

Reducing the risk to one tenth of what it was doesn't seem "slightly" lowering the risk. It actually seems to substantially lower the risk.

Indeed. It just surprises me that it took so long for people to find a non-religious reason that would potentially justify snipping a baby, instead of waiting a few years.

Potentially; since I do not know how serious UTIs are for a baby. Is it something simple that could be solved with 3 days of antibiotics or a serious problem ? Doctors of NSG - enlighten us !

The clinicians use the term "intractable, unresponsive to medication".

Baldwin for Christ thought he was on the chronic once, when he smelled something at Steven Baldwin's Christian Rock Stryper Concert and Silk Screen T-Shirt Mobile Kiosk Business Seminar, but it turned out someone just over microwaved a hotpocket.

Seriously, is there any reality TV that Stephan Baldwin hasn't been on?

Back on topic, the medical benefits have to be weighed against the risks.

Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision. A surgery that removes a healthy body part should certainly require a compelling medical benefit. Preventing a potential infection that doesn't occur as often as the infection that results from the surgery doesn't particularly make sense.

Seriously, is there any reality TV that Stephan Baldwin hasn't been on?

Back on topic, the medical benefits have to be weighed against the risks.

Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision. A surgery that removes a healthy body part should certainly require a compelling medical benefit. Preventing a potential infection that doesn't occur as often as the infection that results from the surgery doesn't particularly make sense.

Did somebody already post the stats on infection from the procedure? I came late to the thread, and I'm lazy.

Did somebody already post the stats on infection from the procedure? I came late to the thread, and I'm lazy.

I linked to a page that links to all sorts of evaluations and studies relating to the procedure.

The overall incidence of complications is argued to be 2 to 10%. Personally, even if it's the lower number that's really high for a procedure with no significant medical indication.

Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision.

One-fourth of pediatricians recommend to most parents of healthy newborn males that circumcision be performed. Another 12 percent recommend to some parents that circumcision be performed, while 64 percent make this recommendation to only a few or no patients.

Fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) recommend to most parents that circumcision not be performed, while 15 percent recommend against circumcision for some patients, and 76 percent so recommend a few to no patients

So while 25% routinely recommend circumcision, only nine percent routinely advise against it. So this horrible, tragic, abusive thing, manages to be specifically spoken out against by...nine percent of pediatricians. With the number explicitly recommending it outnumbering that faction nearly three to one. Whereas the vast majority...has no real opinion one way or the other.

Rather telling that these experts in the field, the people who would actually be the real source of what damage it can do, can be best described as...indifferent.

And what's more?

Most pediatricians (56 percent) think the medical indications for circumcision are inconclusive; 34 percent say the potential medical benefits outweight the disadvantages, while 11 percent say the disadvantages and risks outweight the benefits.

Once again the majority of pediatricians? No firm opinion one way or the other, yet the percentage of pediatricians, the actual experts here, believe that the benefits outway the disadvantages. again, three to one. You keep saying what the experts think. Why do the actual experts seem to disagree with you on that?

Oh, I'm sorry, I did forget my source, of course. I'm sure it's some horribly biased, unaccredited and utterly unsupported baby abuse advocating fringe group like the...american association of pediatricians (http://www.aap.org/research/periodicsurvey/ps37a.htm)

Oh, and just a by the way. This thread has been going for hours about who is right, and who the experts agree with, and what the doctors say. You know how long it took me to find actual statistics? Thirty seconds.

So while 25% routinely recommend circumcision, only nine percent routinely advise against it. So this horrible, tragic, abusive thing, manages to be specifically spoken out against by...nine percent of pediatricians. With the number explicitly recommending it outnumbering that faction nearly three to one. Whereas the vast majority...has no real opinion one way or the other.

Rather telling that these experts in the field, the people who would actually be the real source of what damage it can do, can be best described as...indifferent.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/12/06/14877.aspx

Apparently 39% of pharmacists don't want to be required to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. Unsurprisingly, occasionally religion and cultural beliefs are held by professionals in a field as well.

However, the bulk of the evidence is enough that no medical association recommends it routinely and with the exception of the US where it is a prominent cultural practice, associations outright recommend against it.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/12/06/14877.aspx

Apparently 39% of pharmacists don't want to be required to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. Unsurprisingly, occasionally religion and cultural beliefs are held by professionals in a field as well.

However, the bulk of the evidence is enough that no medical association recommends it routinely and with the exception of the US where it is a prominent cultural practice, associations outright recommend against it.

I wonder why its a more of a prominent cultural practice in the U.S.

Is it seriously because of all the hummers? Was the old guy right?

Oh, I'm sorry, I did forget my source, of course. I'm sure it's some horribly biased, unaccredited and utterly unsupported baby abuse advocating fringe group like the...american association of pediatricians (http://www.aap.org/research/periodicsurvey/ps37a.htm)

Oh, and just a by the way. This thread has been going for hours about who is right, and who the experts agree with, and what the doctors say. You know how long it took me to find actual statistics? Thirty seconds.

It should be noted that the same association is another among the concensus of pediatric and medical associations that do not find a medical reason to recommend routine circumcision. I find it quite useful.

You should probably note, that you're not the first to reference that site. It was reference several pages ago by Atl and it was in some of the links on a page I referenced about 10 pages ago.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/12/06/14877.aspx

Apparently 39% of pharmacists don't want to be required to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill.

For someone who bitches so unyieldingly about going off topic, you seem to do it quite rapidly when painted into a corner. To copy a page from your book, this thread isn't about pharmacists, or prescriptions, so please stay on topic.

Moreover, considering how rapidly you chastised another poster for comparing the discussion to the abortion debate, by pointing out that this topic is not about abortion, or other forms of contraception, I'm very very surprised that you'd try to bring it up now.

or rather, I would be surprised if I expected any better.

However, the bulk of the evidence is enough that no medical association recommends it routinely and with the exception of the US where it is a prominent cultural practice, associations outright recommend against it.

So, let me get this straight. You claim that medical experts agree that the risks of circumcisions outweighs the benefits. Then when it is pointed out to you, by the american association of pediatricians, the leading authority on pediatric care, that in fact the experts think quite the opposite, you accuse them of bias.

That is what we call "poisoning the well". It's also what we call "losing the argument".

What do the Cubans do?

I've heard the Cubans have pretty good infant care.

For someone who bitches so unyieldingly about going off topic, you seem to do it quite rapidly when painted into a corner. This thread isn't about pharmacists, or prescriptions. Moreover, considering how rapidly you chastized another poster for comparing the discussion to the abortion debate, by pointing out that this topic is not about abortion, or other forms of contraception, I'm very very surprised that you'd try to bring it up now.

or rather, I would be surprised if I expected any better.

The point is whether or not they are right or wrong. It's that we know of pretty common examples of cultural or religious beliefs interfering with the professional decisions of professionals.


So, let me get this straight. You claim that medical experts agree that the risks of circumcisions outweighs the benefits. Then when it is pointed out to you, by the american association of pediatricians, the leading authority on pediatric care, that in fact the experts think quite the opposite, you accuse them of bias.

That is what we call "poisoning the well". It's also what we call "losing the argument".

No, I said the associatings universally agree. Obviously there isn't universal agreement among the individual doctors.

The AAP actually demonstrates my point, in fact. They also do not find a compelling medical reason for routine circumcision.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

In case what I said isn't fully remembered... "Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision."

The AAP actually demonstrates my point, in fact. They also do not find a compelling medical reason for routine circumcision.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Let's take a look at the actual language, shall we?

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

The AAP recommends that the decision to undertake a procedure you've described as "abusive" and "mutilation" should be made by...the parents.

It would then appear that while the APP doesn't explcitly recommend circumcision, they're not exactly making all that much effort to disuade people either. And it seems quite shocking to me that the premier pediatric association in this country would allow parents to abuse and mutilate their children.

Guess the AAP doesn't actually consider it abusive or mutilation, do they?


In case what I said isn't fully remembered... "Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision."

And yet those same major pediatric organizations don't seem to be saying that it shouldn't be done either, do they? At very best, they seem to say, on the whole, that it's a toss up. Yes there's harm, yes there's benefit, not enough of either to make a clear determination, so, leave it to the parents to decide.

And since for the most part, if the experts are saying, by and large, it's a tossup, with the "net good" outweighing the "net bad" by a ratio of 3 to 1, your cries of "mutiliation" and "abuse" seem to not reflect the actual medical opinion.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

In case what I said isn't fully remembered... "Every major pediatric or medical organization agrees that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision."

It sounds like they're saying "it might have some good points, but not enough we should be telling everybody they always need to do it".

I feel the same way about anal.

In fairness, it would have been more accurate to say they don't find sufficient medical reason for routine circumcision, which is why I mentioned in the same post that you have to weight benefits and risks.

In fairness, it would have been more accurate to say they don't find sufficient medical reason for routine circumcision, which is why I mentioned in the same post that you have to weight benefits and risks.

Well, now, that's not so terrible.

In fairness, it would have been more accurate to say they don't find sufficient medical reason for routine circumcision, which is why I mentioned in the same post that you have to weight benefits and risks.

I see, was that before or after you referred to it as "mutilation"? Do you think the AAP is regularly in the habit of recommending parents be empowered to make the choice to mutilate their children?

Let's take a look at the actual language, shall we?



The AAP recommends that the decision to undertake a procedure you've described as "abusive" and "mutilation" should be made by...the parents.

It would then appear that while the APP doesn't explcitly recommend circumcision, they're not exactly making all that much effort to disuade people either. And it seems quite shocking to me that the premier pediatric association in this country would allow parents to abuse and mutilate their children.

Guess the AAP doesn't actually consider it abusive or mutilation, do they?

I agree they don't refer to it as mutilation. They don't refer to it as abusive, either. That would certainly be unusual language for an organization of that type.

It's not shocking to me, however, that they allow such things. It wasn't long ago when associations were permitting even more bizarre practices. How long ago did major psychiatric associations consider homosexuality a disease? They are hardly infallible.

What I question is how you address the fact that we don't see higher incidence of UTI among infants in countries where circumcision is virtually unheard of?

That, of course, doesn't change the fact that a moment ago you were suggesting I lost the argument by not addressing their statistics, when the site very much backs the statement I did make. So much for that being right thing.

The term, mutilation, is something I believe applies in that it's cutting off a healthy body part. Obviously if I used a scalpal to cut the face in appropriate places for ritualistic purposes, I could certainly make it so there is no great risk or general permanant lost use, but it would certainly be considered mutilation.

Whether or not mutilation is an emotive word, it's certainly clear that it's being used appropriately when referring the cultural or religious ritual of cutting a perfectly healthy part off a baby.

Seriously, NA, taking the cultural and religious connotations out, would you say that parents should be allowed to determine whether or not to perform liposuction on toddlers?

I see, was that before or after you referred to it as "mutilation"? Do you think the AAP is regularly in the habit of recommending parents be empowered to make the choice to mutilate their children?

My opinion hasn't changed. I was simply saying that it would have been a more accurate way to describe the position of the major medical and pediatric associations.

I don't think it's unusual for a major medical organization to support barbaric beliefs or practices. I gave the historical example of the cultural belief about homosexuality for a very long time affecting the classification of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. It's hardly unprecedented.

It sounds like they're saying "it might have some good points, but not enough we should be telling everybody they always need to do it".

I feel the same way about anal.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we'd say that whether or not a child can remember it or whether or not it "damages" them, that we shouldn't bugger them, either. Frankly, there is little defense for treating a child like a personal doll.

I don't even have to pretend I'm doing it for medical reasons. I can outright say, I want to cut this off my son so his penis looks like mine.

The interesting bit is that countries that have it as a cultural practice seem to have a significant percentage of doctors that recommend it and give medical reasons. Countries that don't have it as a cultural practice have virtually no doctors that recommend it. Probably just coincidence.

(EDIT: Actually, looking it up, there actually a potential non-cultural explanation. European countries have nationalized systems. However, if circumcision does have a medical indication we should expect to see higher UTI rates in Europe, as well as the other things circumcision is purported to cure.)

Okay, sleepy-time. Have a good night.

Do you also believe it should be illegal to pierce ears prior to a certain age? and what age is appropriate?
I personally think it's wrong to pierce a child's ears before the law allows them to render informed medical consent.

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'...
Women also get their labia minora chopped down if it's long because of discomfort or pain during sex or wearing pants. So there's a medical reason for that procedure as well. People would freak, however, if that started being a routine surgical procedure on new borns.

Okay, this is kind of distasteful, but its one guy's view (supposedly, he might have been taking the piss).

An old Filipino guy told me that "In your country, there is so much oral sex, and there's less smeggy stuff in a circumcised penis, so I think you do it for your women".

I really have no idea.

I've never ran into smegma and I've given lots of head (but only to one uncut cock). I prefer giving head on an uncut penis because there's so much more you can do with it. It's more fun for me. I can't exactly say that giving head to an circumcised penis was boring. It's more like ice cream vs ice cream with sprinkles, whipped cream and a cherry. Regular ice cream is great, but the extras make it all the better.

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

Out of those, how many are Jewish, because that must factor into the AIDS thing, if only because religious Jews are less likely to be having gay sex and/or sex before marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

Oh, I'm sorry, I did forget my source, of course. I'm sure it's some horribly biased, unaccredited and utterly unsupported baby abuse advocating fringe group like the...american association of pediatricians (http://www.aap.org/research/periodicsurvey/ps37a.htm)

Just out of interest - how many of their members are Jews ;) ?
Not that I seriously think they are biased - but one must make sure.

Oh, and just a by the way. This thread has been going for hours about who is right, and who the experts agree with, and what the doctors say. You know how long it took me to find actual statistics? Thirty seconds.

A very good point.
Then again, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people posting in this topic would not ask their doctor , but just do or not do it. According to the source you quoted, that is also the trend amongst the general population.

Intruiging. Scary.

I will admit, I'm a little biased due to the religious issue. That said, male circumcision is mandated by Jewish law. If it were to be banned in the United States, I think that we'd lose at least half of the American Jewish community.

I will admit, I'm a little biased due to the religious issue. That said, male circumcision is mandated by Jewish law. If it were to be banned in the United States, I think that we'd lose at least half of the American Jewish community.

Mirk, your avatar! Jewthulu has risen!!!!!:eek:

I even have stats:

Eats 1d6 anti-Semites/round

I even have stats:

Eats 1d6 anti-Semites/round

Long live Jewthulu!:hail:

I even have stats:

Eats 1d6 anti-Semites/round

But can you beat the holy cowthulhu ?

But can you beat the holy cowthulhu ?

Mmm, insane flank steak!

Getting back on topic, I would like to offer one warning to people seeking to ban male circumcision. The last time anyone imposed a blanket ban on the practice was when Antiochus IV did so in 170 BCE. The Jews kinda... revolted. And won.

Mmm, insane flank steak!

Getting back on topic, I would like to offer one warning to people seeking to ban male circumcision. The last time anyone imposed a blanket ban on the practice was when Antiochus IV did so in 170 BCE. The Jews kinda... revolted. And won.

Rebelling against the Seleucids is not an impressive achievement.

Mmm, insane flank steak!

Getting back on topic, I would like to offer one warning to people seeking to ban male circumcision. The last time anyone imposed a blanket ban on the practice was when Antiochus IV did so in 170 BCE. The Jews kinda... revolted. And won.

Pfft, it won't get banned.

Jews own the world. Didn't get you the memo?

Rebelling against the Seleucids is not an impressive achievement.

Yes, but we didn't have an army. Now, we have the IDF. Oh, and a not-insignificant portion of the US military.

Getting back on topic, I would like to offer one warning to people seeking to ban male circumcision. The last time anyone imposed a blanket ban on the practice was when Antiochus IV did so in 170 BCE. The Jews kinda... revolted. And won.

So - WHY is this so important to the Jews ? Why does JHWH demand that you do it ?

So - WHY is this so important to the Jews ? Why does JHWH demand that you do it ?

I believe it is to mark us as Jews, and to separate us from non-Jews.

I believe it is to mark us as Jews, and to separate us from non-Jews.

But non-Jews do it as well. I am even willing to wager that the number of circumcised males on this planet is more than twice the number of male Jews - meaning that the Jews are even outnumbered by non Jews marked in the same way.

Does G-d not offer any other reasons ?

But non-Jews do it as well. I am even willing to wager that the number of circumcised males on this planet is more than twice the number of male Jews - meaning that the Jews are even outnumbered by non Jews marked in the same way.

Does G-d not offer any other reasons ?

A reason why Bris Milah (Brit Milah) is specifically done by removal of the foreskin, is because that part of the body can be used in two opposite extremes. First it may be used for the great purpose of bringing offspring into the world and on the other hand it can be used for used for destructive and promiscuous purposes.

When we do Bris Milah (Brit Milah) we are asserting our identification with G-d and our commitment to use our entire bodies for great purposes. The positive commandment stated in the Torah (Jewish Bible) to perform circumcision, also carries with it a grave consequence for those that do not have circumcision.

The Torah (Jewish Bible) states that G-d will cut off any Jewish male who is not circumcised. Not having Bris Milah (Brit Milah) is one of only two positive commandments in the Torah (Jewish Bible) which carry this severe punishment. When one has a Bris Milah (Brit Milah) and is circumcised in accordance with Jewish tradition, he will of course receive eternal rewards for his actions. I'm sure there's a lot of Talmudic explanations for it, too. But that seems to reverberate with what I remember from my religious schooling and it was at the top of the google results.

I'm sure there's a lot of Talmudic explanations for it, too. But that seems to reverberate with what I remember from my religious schooling and it was at the top of the google results.

That's actually interesting. I never did know the reason. I don't suppose it said what the other positive commandment was? /curious

That's actually interesting. I never did know the reason. I don't suppose it said what the other positive commandment was? /curious
I think it's the Love the Lord with all your heart thing.......but maybe not.

I'm sure there's a lot of Talmudic explanations for it, too. But that seems to reverberate with what I remember from my religious schooling and it was at the top of the google results.

So basicly it is only an act to show submission to G-d, with no inherent value of itself, according to the Torah ?
As in - the only reason to do it, is to demonstrate your respect for Him ?

So basicly it is only an act to show submission to G-d, with no inherent value of itself, according to the Torah ?
As in - the only reason to do it, is to demonstrate your respect for Him ?

Exactly.

So basicly it is only an act to show submission to G-d, with no inherent value of itself, according to the Torah ?
As in - the only reason to do it, is to demonstrate your respect for Him ?

Well, according to the Talmud, at the core of it, all the laws come down to that. They are the laws and, furthermore, they are His laws. As such, while there may be practical explanations for them, or some rational basis and reasoning, it still boils down to these are the laws given to the Jewish people by God, and it is within this framework that Jews are to live, regardless of questions one may have of the law. (Keep in mind, this doesn't necessitate a cessation of arguing and bitching about why the laws are the laws, how best to follow them and "why haven't I seen you in shul in so long?!").

If you want a practical explanation, it probably stems from the fact that, yes, circumcision makes it less likely for an unhygienic person to contract various ailments and humans often tend to be relatively disgusting and unhygienic animals. The ancient Hebrews probably noticed that this odd tribal tradition stopped people from having their wangs rot off and were all like, "ZAMG...IZ PROOF GOD! IZ NOW TEH LAWZ." And then molehs got jobs and the age old tradition of the chop-snippity began.

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.

No. I saw it as reasonable because it used your own arguments.

If it was unreasonable...

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

As my wife just pointed out, you can't spell 'mentsrual' without 'mental'.

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 don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'contradict'.

You also made nonsensical comments about things like the reference to how to maintain genital hygiene in an uncircumcised boy. You clearly didn't know what you were talking about, so I said as much.

If you have no knowledge, it's better to sit quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

It is healthier, simply because it's easier to clean.
Easier!? Just how hard do you think it is to clean?


There's been a number of reports that circumcized men are less likely to get AIDS as well.
Newborns/infants/younger children are?

Oh how I just LOVE the "MGM (disease) exception". :|

It's ok though, it's not the first time i've had to help someone understand the full...context of this particular argument. So i'll take your AIDS argument and raise it by breast cancer. (i.e. routine infant mastectomies > breast cancer)

Your turn.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'contradict'.

Of course I do. Your source said it makes hygiene easier to leave an intact foreskin, and, in fact, the penis does not even have to be cleaned - just immersed in water.

The source I linked said exactly the opposite.

That is the definition of contradiction.

You also made nonsensical comments about things like the reference to how to maintain genital hygiene in an uncircumcised boy. You clearly didn't know what you were talking about, so I said as much.

Oh? So the American Association of Pediatrics knows nothing about babies. That's an interesting assumption.

If you have no knowledge, it's better to sit quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You could take this to heart.

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.

At least three of which are pure bullshit 'reasons', and a medical establishment SHOULD be humiliated for even suggesting them.

Yes - of COURSE being circumcised means you're less likely to have infections in your foreskin. And having your arms cut off means you're less likely to get infections in your hands. It's a ridiculous statement, and deserves to be ridiculed.

Phimosis obviously only occurs in uncircmcised males, BECAUSE it requires a foreskin. Again, accidentally ghluing your hands together is only a risk if you've got hands.

Seriously - these reasons are beyond stupid to expose an infant to unnecessary surgery.

The statistical data is also nonsensical, because the statisitical difference is statistically insignificant.

Further, the last two reasons, being about 'fitting in' and 'culture'? Bullshit of the highest order - compounded by the fact that our societies do NOT accept the same arguments for OTHER forms of nonconsensual mutilation of infants.

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.

Yes 'double standard' is the right term. I agree with you, too.

Yes, the clitoris IS a major functional part of female sexuale experiences, sure. But if you cut it off, a woman can still reproduce, and experience sexual arousal and pleasure, so it's not essential - just like the argument about foreskins.

I'm not equaiting the removal of an entire clitoris with the removal of a foreskin - but I am saying they are both genital mutilation, and that the same 'justifications' behind why it's 'okay' to cut bits of baby boys can be applied to baby girls.

Between the three of us, only one of us is secretly hoping that one of the remaining will someday want to make out with him.

I'm a sarcastic aggressive mean pedantic and harsh asshole because I can be. Because I'm very rarely wrong. When you manage to reach the second qualifier, then you can make fair use of the first.

One earns his right to be an asshole based on the weight of his abilities. If you think the poorly reasoned overly emotive crap you've spewed out pretending to be an argument qualifies you, you're sorely mistaken.

This thread seems to spawn a lot of 'attack the poster, not the post' trolling...

Rather telling that these experts in the field, the people who would actually be the real source of what damage it can do, can be best described as...indifferent.


I've also heard that some people involved in legal professions advise people to engage in legal actions, some chefs encourage people to buy pre-prepared food, and some mechanics suggest that you get your brakes looked at.

What a crazy world.

Oh, and just a by the way. This thread has been going for hours about who is right, and who the experts agree with, and what the doctors say. You know how long it took me to find actual statistics? Thirty seconds.

Not really. It was established rather early that I was right, and a lot of people spent hours wringing their hands and trying to find semantic reasons why it couldn't be so.

Mmm, insane flank steak!

Getting back on topic, I would like to offer one warning to people seeking to ban male circumcision. The last time anyone imposed a blanket ban on the practice was when Antiochus IV did so in 170 BCE. The Jews kinda... revolted. And won.

Yep. All law about abusing children should be dictated by whether or not you are willing to face possible revolution of a minority.

So - WHY is this so important to the Jews ? Why does JHWH demand that you do it ?

Ever seen what is left after a circumcision? Batter it and deep fry it, and it's like a penis-flavored onion ring. I'm just saying.

Of course I do. Your source said it makes hygiene easier to leave an intact foreskin, and, in fact, the penis does not even have to be cleaned - just immersed in water.


That's not what it said.


Oh? So the American Association of Pediatrics knows nothing about babies. That's an interesting assumption.


I didn't say that - but the AAP apparently accepts cultural and even religious justifications for unnecessary surgery, so I don't trust them to be any more objective than opposition sources.

Ask your doctor what you should do about an uncircumcised infant boy's penis, regards cleanliness. When you have a clue, come back and talk to us.


You could take this to heart.

I did. Which is why I'm talking about a subject I actually know something about - a lesson you could do to learn.

That's not what it said.
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]

Try to read your sources before you post them. It makes your arguments come out clearer.

I didn't say that - but the AAP apparently accepts cultural and even religious justifications for unnecessary surgery, so I don't trust them to be any more objective than opposition sources.

But, yet, they list specific medical benefits of the procedure. You have not done anything to contradict those, or even make me believe they're inaccurate in any way.

Ask your doctor what you should do about an uncircumcised infant boy's penis, regards cleanliness. When you have a clue, come back and talk to us.

I'd have to ask, but I'm certain "just immerse in plain bathwater" isn't it.

I did. Which is why I'm talking about a subject I actually know something about - a lesson you could do to learn.

Oh I'll admit I don't know much about uncircumcised penises, as I don't remember having one myself. However, to think that I am mentally incapable, less capable of having sex, and only have to clean my penis because I'm circumcised (all claimed in your link), well, I have to laugh.

Sorry, I just do.

Not really. It was established rather early that I was right, and a lot of people spent hours wringing their hands and trying to find semantic reasons why it couldn't be so.

Kimchi, is that you?

Try to read your sources before you post them.


I did. Your comprehension is lacking. Try reading it again, and contrasting it with what YOU posted that I objected to.


But, yet, they list specific medical benefits of the procedure. You have not done anything to contradict those, or even make me believe they're inaccurate in any way.


I don't need to contradict the statistics. For the most part, the statistics aren't significant, and where they are - it's a comparison that pales beside any kind of actual safe-sex practice... so it's STILL not statistically significant.

You notice that they don't really discuss any of the statistics of risk - clear evidence of bias.


I'd have to ask,


An admission of ignorance - a good start.


...but I'm certain "just immerse in plain bathwater" isn't it.


And then an argument FROM ignorance. Incredible.

How about, you actually find out before you tell us what your 'certain' of.


Oh I'll admit I don't know much about uncircumcised penises,


And this is where you should just shut up and let those who DO know, talk.


...as I don't remember having one myself. However, to think that I am mentally incapable, less capable of having sex, and only have to clean my penis because I'm circumcised (all claimed in your link), well, I have to laugh.


My wife doesn't like to think that she's short.

She is though, whether she likes it or not - and feeling insulted by that isn't a good argument against it, and also doesn't make her any taller.

Kimchi, is that you?

It wasn't last time, and it still isn't. It's also entirely irrelevant.

Well, according to the Talmud, at the core of it, all the laws come down to that. They are the laws and, furthermore, they are His laws. As such, while there may be practical explanations for them, or some rational basis and reasoning, it still boils down to these are the laws given to the Jewish people by God, and it is within this framework that Jews are to live, regardless of questions one may have of the law. (Keep in mind, this doesn't necessitate a cessation of arguing and bitching about why the laws are the laws, how best to follow them and "why haven't I seen you in shul in so long?!").

You've explained it better than I've ever heard before.

I did. Your comprehension is lacking. Try reading it again, and contrasting it with what YOU posted that I objected to.

That the penis is self-cleaning, the foreskin should never be pulled back, and that immersion in bathwater is all that's needed? I don't really think much interpretation is required. Do you really need me to spell it out any clearer?

I don't need to contradict the statistics. For the most part, the statistics aren't significant, and where they are - it's a comparison that pales beside any kind of actual safe-sex practice... so it's STILL not statistically significant.

I take it you didn't actually read what my link talked about. STDs were but one bullet point out of many. Mostly, it talked about urinary tract infections, and infections of the foreskin.

You notice that they don't really discuss any of the statistics of risk - clear evidence of bias.

It's sad that an association that is made up of members that spend their lives caring for our children could be so biased against children.

Also, they did discuss the statistics for urinary tract infection.

An admission of ignorance - a good start. And then an argument FROM ignorance. Incredible. How about, you actually find out before you tell us what your 'certain' of.

Ok, men of NSG, when you clean your penises, do you have to pull back the foreskin and clean your penis or can you just immerse it in water?

She is though, whether she likes it or not - and feeling insulted by that isn't a good argument against it, and also doesn't make her any taller.

So do you agree with the article that circumcised males are mentally deficient, worse off sexually, and have shorter penises (on average)? All were claimed in the article.

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. :)

One problem here is that most of the health benefits have really only be demonstrated in third-world countries. When they try to repeat those same studies in countries with better hygiene and higher rates of safe sex, there no longer seems to be any difference - at least not one that is measurable.

It really suggests that you can get the benefits of circumcision for your son by teaching him to keep himself clean and to wear a condom - without cutting any pieces of him off. Of course, in a country where parents are all too often too embarrassed to discuss proper genital hygiene, being uncut might be a problem. But then, that sounds like poor parenting to me.

It wasn't last time, and it still isn't. It's also entirely irrelevant.

I've never asked you before. Your typing and argument style reminded me of him a lot, so I thought I'd ask.

That the penis is self-cleaning, the foreskin should never be pulled back, and that immersion in bathwater is all that's needed? I don't really think much interpretation is required. Do you really need me to spell it out any clearer?


No, I don't... but apparently you still can't read.

Seriously - read what you just posted here... read what the link says - and see if you can find any important terms that might make the two different things.


I take it you didn't actually read what my link talked about. STDs were but one bullet point out of many. Mostly, it talked about urinary tract infections, and infections of the foreskin.


I take it you didn't read the response I made to TAI's 'unpacking' of your list.


It's sad that an association that is made up of members that spend their lives caring for our children could be so biased against children.


Biased in favor of work for doctors, more likely.


Also, they did discuss the statistics for urinary tract infection.


They didn't dicuss the risks of circumcision.


Ok, men of NSG, when you clean your penises, do you have to pull back the foreskin and clean your penis or can you just immerse it in water?


And how many of you are children.


So do you agree with the article that circumcised males are mentally deficient, worse off sexually, and have shorter penises (on average)? All were claimed in the article.

Once again, you're doing a piss poor job of actually saying what was in the source.

One problem here is that most of the health benefits have really only be demonstrated in third-world countries. When they try to repeat those same studies in countries with better hygiene and higher rates of safe sex, there no longer seems to be any difference - at least not one that is measurable.

It really suggests that you can get the benefits of circumcision for your son by teaching him to keep himself clean and to wear a condom - without cutting any pieces of him off. Of course, in a country where parents are all too often too embarrassed to discuss proper genital hygiene, being uncut might be a problem. But then, that sounds like poor parenting to me.

Hence why I personally tend to think the "anti" outweighs the "pro" - the health benefits around here seem to be pretty minor. I recognize, though, that if I were living in Africa, I might find that argument much more persuasive, so I still think it qualifies as a "good argument." :)

I've never asked you before. Your typing and argument style reminded me of him a lot, so I thought I'd ask.

My typing and argument style are nothing like his.

I've checked.

It has been suggested before, (by other posters, perhaps) that Kimchi and I might be the same poster - and most of those arguments have been based on the fact that my positions on certain issues, remind people of him.

Most of those people have since retracted such claims. At least two people know for a fact. At least one more may well have a pretty good idea. Nanatsu has already said she doesn't think I'm Kimchi. You should listen to her.

But it's still irrelevant.

No, I don't... but apparently you still can't read.

Seriously - read what you just posted here... read what the link says - and see if you can find any important terms that might make the two different things.

I'm going to do this real slow.

Now, what I said:

That the penis is self-cleaning,

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]

the foreskin should never be pulled back,

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]

and that immersion in bathwater is all that's needed?

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]

I don't think I can get any clearer than that.

I take it you didn't read the response I made to TAI's 'unpacking' of your list.

I think I did, but I don't recall. All the nonsense kind of blurs together into one big blob after a while.

Biased in favor of work for doctors, more likely.

They didn't dicuss the risks of circumcision.

Yes, there are risks. We know. There are also benefits. We know. It's the parent's choice along with the advice of their doctor whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

25% of them will have a doctor that recommends circumcision always. 9% will have a doctor that recommends against circumcision always.

And how many of you are children.

We have several early teens here. I don't know if they're circumcised or not, though.

Once again, you're doing a piss poor job of actually saying what was in the source.

Like this:

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]

And this?

Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter.

K, to argue in the alternative.

If I belonged to a culture that practiced circumcision, male or female...and I was not circumcised...I would probably feel pretty unwhole until I was able to reach the age where I got to choose to do it. Now, women might not be jumping in line to get FGM, but considering men who convert to certain religions willingly undergo the procedure, I can't imagine too many honestly faithful men shying away from it.

To a certain extent all parents make cultural and religious decisions for their children. It would piss me off beyond belief to be told I couldn't teach my children aboriginal traditions/spirituality. They might witness a sundance, which is not a pretty sight...what if that were labelled abusive?

If my people practiced circumcision traditionally (they don't), I would feel pretty strongly about raising my children with their cultural identity, that included.

I wouldn't make this choice for my children, but then again, it's not my culture, and the medical reasons aren't compelling IMO.

I would argue that a culture that doesn't let children make these decisions for themselves - that makes permanent changes like this in infancy (without medical justification, obv) is a culture that probably isn't worth preserving, because it doesn't respect the right of the individual to bodily integrity. (Or, I suppose, it would be more correct to say that this part of the culture wouldn't be worth preserving. There certainly could be other things that are.)

I think making permanent bodily changes is a far leap from teaching children about traditions, spirituality, etc. If a child later wants to reject those teachings, he can. He can't magically regrow body parts that have been removed.

2. Abortion is not irrelevant. Some people have the same attitude about abortion as some people do about male circumcision, and give the same sorts of accusatory, emotive arguments. And people who say "abortion is murder" are every bit as wrong as those here saying that male circumcision is "abuse," and for pretty much the same reason.

Actually, the arguments in favor of legal abortion and against infant circumcision are quite similar.

You see, the argument for abortion is that a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her own body. She has the right to her own bodily integrity and gets to decide how her body is, or is not, used.

The argument against infant circumcision is that the infant has an equivalent right to bodily integrity and that the decision to unnecessarily cut off body parts should not be in the hands of anyone but him.

My typing and argument style are nothing like his.

I've checked.

It has been suggested before, (by other posters, perhaps) that Kimchi and I might be the same poster - and most of those arguments have been based on the fact that my positions on certain issues, remind people of him.

Most of those people have since retracted such claims. At least two people know for a fact. At least one more may well have a pretty good idea. Nanatsu has already said she doesn't think I'm Kimchi. You should listen to her.

But it's still irrelevant.

I was just checking. You reminded me of him, so I wondered. I still miss Kimchi, keep hoping he'll come back. He was a lot of fun.

Alright. I've been trying to lead you to it. I'm just going to be explicit, because you're boring me:


You said: "...That the penis is self-cleaning"

The source you've repeatedly referred to says "...A child's foreskin... is self-cleansing..."


You said: "...the foreskin should never be pulled back..."

The source says: "...it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin..."


You said: "...immersion in bathwater is all that's needed..."

The source says: "...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"


I think I did, but I don't recall. All the nonsense kind of blurs together into one big blob after a while.


Nice admission that you were wrong.


Yes, there are risks. We know. There are also benefits. We know. It's the parent's choice along with the advice of their doctor whether the risks outweigh the benefits.


It is the parents choice. It shoudln't be.

There are risks, and yet the group discussing the practice is tending towards cultural 'advantage' and neglecting to give equal discussion to actual medical risk - that's intellectually dishonest of them, and means that parents CAN'T make a reasoned choice, because they're not being given honest advice.


25% of them will have a doctor that recommends circumcision always. 9% will have a doctor that recommends against circumcision always.


In one culture. In other similar cultures without the cultural/societal paradigm, the representation of the data is very different.


And this?

Again - i'm not going to lead you around any more.

You said: "...you agree with the article that circumcised males are mentally deficient, worse off sexually, and have shorter penises (on average)?"

The source said: "...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]... Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter."

It doesn't say you'll have a shorter penis on average, it says a circumcised penis will be upto 25% shorter. If I say having a haircut will make my hair 25% shorter, I don't mean it will be shorter than THE AVERAGE HAIRCUT, I mean it will be 25% shorter than it would have been otherwise.

It involves chopping off tissue... it's not hard to believe.

Indeed, given that the average American penis is an inch or more shorter than the average British penis (circumcised culture measured against uncircumcised culture), that's not an unreasonable conclusion.

As for 'mentally deficient' and 'worse off sexually'... if you extract those responses from "detrimental effects on the developing brain, adversely altering the brain's perception centers, a lower pain threshold, disturbing levels of neurological damage"... well, that's not necessarily the way I would have phrased it.

Which - isn't actually an argument against any of those claims, of course.

I was just checking. You reminded me of him, so I wondered. I still miss Kimchi, keep hoping he'll come back. He was a lot of fun.

I'm not a lot of fun. I'm a miserable curmudgeon.

Alright. I've been trying to lead you to it. I'm just going to be explicit, because you're boring me:


You said: "...That the penis is self-cleaning"

The source you've repeatedly referred to says "...A child's foreskin... is self-cleansing..."


You said: "...the foreskin should never be pulled back..."

The source says: "...it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin..."


You said: "...immersion in bathwater is all that's needed..."

The source says: "...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"

I'm aware of what it says. As a child, penises don't need cleaning, just water.

Nice admission that you were wrong.

I admitted nothing.

It is the parents choice. It shoudln't be.

There are risks, and yet the group discussing the practice is tending towards cultural 'advantage' and neglecting to give equal discussion to actual medical risk - that's intellectually dishonest of them, and means that parents CAN'T make a reasoned choice, because they're not being given honest advice.

See, if you had actually followed the link, instead of just reading TAI's unpacking of one half of it, you would have seen that the benefits and risks were weighed side-by-side. Well, actually it was one on top of the other, in list form, but you get the idea.

In one culture. In other similar cultures without the cultural/societal paradigm, the representation of the data is very different.

Perhaps, but you have given no figures to that at all, so all we have are Neo Art's.

Indeed, given that the average American penis is an inch or more shorter than the average British penis (circumcised culture measured against uncircumcised culture), that's not an unreasonable conclusion.

I gotta have a source for this, just for curiosity's sake.

As for 'mentally deficient' and 'worse off sexually'... if you extract those responses from "detrimental effects on the developing brain, adversely altering the brain's perception centers, a lower pain threshold, disturbing levels of neurological damage"... well, that's not necessarily the way I would have phrased it.

But it is what it is.

I'm not a lot of fun. I'm a miserable curmudgeon.

You said it. I didn't.

I'm aware of what it says. As a child, penises don't need cleaning, just water.


They also don't need the foreskin to be retracted. This is all the content you admitted to not knowing, but being 'certain' was untrue. You were wrong.

You then started talking about how penises don't need washing, or something - moving from the correct way to treat a child's genitalia, to a universal rule... which was never implied or suggested.


I admitted nothing.


You said you noticed I hadn't responded, and then said you remembered maybe reading the response you had just said that I hadn't made.

I'm not sure how you don't consider that an admission of being wrong.


See, if you had actually followed the link, instead of just reading TAI's unpacking of one half of it, you would have seen that the benefits and risks were weighed side-by-side. Well, actually it was one on top of the other, in list form, but you get the idea.


I did read it. I didn't respond to the source, I responded to TAI when he posted it - and I pointed out that their 'risk' thing was dishonest and irrelevant.


I gotta have a source for this, just for curiosity's sake.


I don't have it to hand, right now. There's this - http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/global_penis_size_survey.shtml which is not the source I would have liked to refer to. The UK figure I saw was close to the French figure.


You said it. I didn't.

And I stand by it.

This thread certainly went somewhere else entirely, didn't it?
Oh, I don't know. It still seemed to be about measuring dicks. ;)

Just because this is a thread about dicks, it doesn't mean you boys need to whip yours out and compare them.

Honest to god, I spend my whole day separating squabbling boys and telling them to ignore each other, and then I come home and get on NSG. >_<
Masochist. ^^

Just out of interest - how many of their members are Jews ;) ?
Not that I seriously think they are biased - but one must make sure.



Why are you singling out the Jews? Muslims also practice circumcision and in the US and Canada, the vast majority of persons choosing to have their sons circumcised are neither. This not just a 'jewish' thing, and I'm uncertain as to why you'd suggest it is.

So basicly it is only an act to show submission to G-d, with no inherent value of itself, according to the Torah ?
As in - the only reason to do it, is to demonstrate your respect for Him ?
A long time ago I read some anthropology paper about parental god images in various cultures. That paper focused a lot on some Australian aboriginal tribes' tradition of, to other people's eyes, quite extreme male genital mutilation. I won't go into detail, but trust me, if circumcision makes you wince, this would put you into 5 days a week therapy with meds for years. Their rituals were done to teenagers as the main part of the male coming-of-age initiation rituals. ("Today I am a man.") The purpose of it was to ritually and magically invoke the sexuality of their paternal fertility god, who was also the ancestor of human beings. They fertilized the earth with their blood, just as he had originally in the Dream Time. As described by the researcher, the ritual was an ecstatic group experience which would usually include older men cutting themselves again (sometimes many times over, year after year) to reaffirm their connection to their god and in solidarity with the young guys doing it for the first time.

In fact, for most non-Jewish/non-western cultures that do practice male circumcision, it is part of male adulthood initiation and is not done to infants, though it can be done to children as young as 8 or 9. In many cultures, it is not done until teen age. It all depends on when a male child is believed to make the social switch from child to man, from living with his mother to living in the company of men who will teach him how to do man stuff.

I have not yet been able to figure out why the Jewish culture decided to do this with infants instead of older boys.

EDIT: Interestingly (to me), I saw something on, I think the show is called, "Living with the Kombai" in which the local guys decided to do a kind of mini-initiation on the British guys to integrate them properly into the community. Part of their male initiation rituals include a weird thing they do with their penises -- some kind of semi-inversion thing -- the image was blurred out on the tv, so I couldn't really figure out what they did, but the effect was to keep the little man out of the way in a society that wears no pants. Now of course, they were not going to subject the British guys to this, but one of them insisted on trying it, you know, to get the full Kombai experience. And his hosts were like, "Well...if you really want to...okay...brace yourself." So the elders and shaman did whatever they do, some kind of puppetry in the crotch, and presto! He lasted, oh, about half a second. He said it was the most blinding, crippling pain he'd ever felt. And his hosts were like, "Yeah, we told you it would hurt."

The point is, it seems to me that there is a very widespread and longstanding pattern among male adulthood initiation traditions of doing something to demonstrate mastery over one's penis (or one's sexual urges, or animal nature, or something like that). Over one's self, basically. A pattern of inflicting harm on the penis (facing a primal fear?) and getting over it (not fearing it anymore?). I'm just speculating here, but to me, in this light, male genital mutilation rituals make sense, whereas infant circumcision makes little sense to me, unless it is purely magical.

A long time ago I read some anthropology paper about parental god images in various cultures. That paper focused a lot on some Australian aboriginal tribes' tradition of, to other people's eyes, quite extreme male genital mutilation. I won't go into detail, but trust me, if circumcision makes you wince, this would put you into 5 days a week therapy with meds for years. Their rituals were done to teenagers as the main part of the male coming-of-age initiation rituals. ("Today I am a man.") The purpose of it was to ritually and magically invoke the sexuality of their paternal fertility god, who was also the ancestor of human beings. They fertilized the earth with their blood, just as he had originally in the Dream Time. As described by the researcher, the ritual was an ecstatic group experience which would usually include older men cutting themselves again (sometimes many times over, year after year) to reaffirm their connection to their god and in solidarity with the young guys doing it for the first time.

In fact, for most non-Jewish/non-western cultures that do practice male circumcision, it is part of male adulthood initiation and is not done to infants, though it can be done to children as young as 8 or 9. In many cultures, it is not done until teen age. It all depends on when a male child is believed to make the social switch from child to man, from living with his mother to living in the company of men who will teach him how to do man stuff.

I have not yet been able to figure out why the Jewish culture decided to do this with infants instead of older boys.

Maybe the idea is that if you wait for a Jewish boy to stop depending on his mother, you won't be circumcising him until he's 35? :wink:

Why are you singling out the Jews? Muslims also practice circumcision and in the US and Canada, the vast majority of persons choosing to have their sons circumcised are neither. This not just a 'jewish' thing, and I'm uncertain as to why you'd suggest it is.
Americans copied it from Jews in modern times. I'd guess most of Europe did, too. Maybe that's why we associate it so much with Jewish culture.

Maybe the idea is that if you wait for a Jewish boy to stop depending on his mother, you won't be circumcising him until he's 35? :wink:
Oh, SNAP! :D

Americans copied it from Jews in modern times. I'd guess most of Europe did, too. Maybe that's why we associate it so much with Jewish culture.

From what I understand, it's not very prevalent in Europe among non-jews and non-muslims.

In any case, it's become something here in the US and Canada that is not, in the main, a Jewish thing. Yet so far, NO one has mentioned it specifically in regards to Muslims the way they have in regards to Jews...and no one is really saying anything negative about the non-Jews who do it for supposed health reasons.

Just saying. Wondering at the focus.

From what I understand, it's not very prevalent in Europe among non-jews and non-muslims.

In any case, it's become something here in the US and Canada that is not, in the main, a Jewish thing. Yet so far, NO one has mentioned it specifically in regards to Muslims the way they have in regards to Jews...and no one is really saying anything negative about the non-Jews who do it for supposed health reasons.

Just saying. Wondering at the focus.
Oh, come on, you're not really wondering, are you? ;) I think it basically just boils down to we've spent more time stereotyping Jews than stereotyping Muslims, and we're still knee-jerk reacting to the image we're familiar with, both the true and false parts of it.

This thread certainly went somewhere else entirely, didn't it?

I think we need to snip a small bit of this thread.

It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.

1) Health reasons: e.g., reduced risk of smegma accumulation and penile cancer.

2) Aesthetic reasons: uncircumcised units resemble animal organs and have a higher percentage of disproportionately small heads.

Oh, come on, you're not really wondering, are you? ;) I think it basically just boils down to we've spent more time stereotyping Jews than stereotyping Muslims, and we're still knee-jerk reacting to the image we're familiar with, both the true and false parts of it.

Yeah, just thought it worth bringing to the forefront, you know, considering that stereotyping in this manner is a big pile of fuck.

I wanna talk about barbaric Gentiles, damnit!

1) Health reasons: e.g., reduced risk of smegma accumulation and penile cancer.

2) Aesthetic reasons: uncircumcised units resemble animal organs and have a higher percentage of disproportionately small heads.

I nominate this as the most moronic post in the thread. Anyone to second it?

I nominate this as the most moronic post in the thread. Anyone to second it?

I can't quite. There's just too much competition.

Yeah, just thought it worth bringing to the forefront, you know, considering that stereotyping in this manner is a big pile of fuck.

I wanna talk about barbaric Gentiles, damnit!

I'm beginning to think us Westerners posses no real reason for circumcising boys.

I can't quite. There's just too much competition.

Hmm. The most moronic obviously-hasn't-bothered-to-read-the-thread-yet-still-on-topic post?

I'm beginning to think us Westerners posses no real reason for circumcising boys.

That's what I don't get. I get strong cultural or religious reasons to do it. I mean, I don't get it because I don't share that culture, but I understand why it would be taken for granted, expected, viewed positively, what have you. I don't get how this became a secular cultural practice here. I mean, come on. It's not like the Jews were ever massively popular, so the suggestion that we were emulating them falls a little flat. Until recently, there wasn't much of a Muslim population in the US and Canada. So what? How? Why? When? Who? 42?

That's what I don't get. I get strong cultural or religious reasons to do it. I mean, I don't get it because I don't share that culture, but I understand why it would be taken for granted, expected, viewed positively, what have you. I don't get how this became a secular cultural practice here.

Perhaps it all boils down to emulation, at least when one speaks about this in the US. Of them coming into contact to, say, Jewish traditions or Muslim ones and, thinking them practical, enacting them for no other reason. And it's become so ingrained in the culture that they just... do it. No other reason. Of course, this is just me musing. I could be quite wrong.

There still seems to be medical evidence that it is helpful in certain things, which is why I still maintain it should be the parents (in concert with their doctors) choice. I didn't quote this whole page, suffice to say the first part was about infant mortality.

Very similar to the study by Wiswell above, it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [114]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [114].

In essence, you're looking at a 1 in 476 chance of complication, which will probably be relatively minor and easily treated. However, there is a 1/100 chance of UTI without circumcision.

Incidentally, this coincides nicely with the WHO's assessment of complications being between 1/200 and 1/500, depending on the conditions the circumcision was performed in.

Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [324]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised.

So, if they have a circumcision, they are half as likely to require medical attention for penile problems, according to this study.

Source. (http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html)

References. (http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_references-page1.html)

114. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 246-9.

324. Langer JC, Coplen DE. Circumcision and pediatric disorders of the penis. Pediatr Clin N Am 1998; 45: 801-12.

I nominate this as the most moronic post in the thread. Anyone to second it?

I would, but Erastide has given me approval to say that people who have their children circumcised should be tortured to death... which is too good an opportunity to pass up, so I can't back the competition.

I nominate this as the most moronic post in the thread. Anyone to second it?

I can't quite. There's just too much competition.
I think it gets the nod just for the animal comparison and "small head" remark.

I won't pass judgment on the poster in question, but I personally have never spent any time comparing human penises to animal penises, and as for the bit about them being more likely to have a small head...

Well, some targets are just too easy. It wouldn't be sporting. ;)

Why are you singling out the Jews? Muslims also practice circumcision and in the US and Canada, the vast majority of persons choosing to have their sons circumcised are neither. This not just a 'jewish' thing, and I'm uncertain as to why you'd suggest it is.

1. I was referring to the doctors, not the "patients".

2. As far as I know Muslims do not *have* to circumcise their kids, it is just "praiseworthy". Jews must.

As such it would be vaguely interesting to know how many of the interviewed doctors in the report were Jews; though my response was mostly in jest referring to the claim the report was completely unbiased.

However, I concede that for a serious look at bias the number of muslims is also relevant.

and no one is really saying anything negative about the non-Jews who do it for supposed health reasons.

*raises eyebrow*
Perhaps you should reread the thread ? The supposed "health reasons" have repeatedly been ripped apart.

I won't pass judgment on the poster in question, but I personally have never spent any time comparing human penises to animal penises, and as for the bit about them being more likely to have a small head.

Thank you for your kind consideration in deciding not to "pass judgment on the poster in question." Since you know little if anything about me, such restraint is appropriate. Since I know little if anything about you, or Neesika for that matter, I likewise shall not pass judgment on either of you.

I will note, however, that the health observations and the aesthetic observations pertaining to the dimensions of certain elements of the penis are not original to me. I recall reading them in a textbook on sexual health or some such that included a discussion of circumcision, found the arguments persuasive, and adopted them. The animal reference, however, is my own, and I stand by it. Laugh if you must, but you will understand if I give your derision all the respect it is due.

2) Aesthetic reasons: uncircumcised units resemble animal organs and have a higher percentage of disproportionately small heads.

You know.. based on this post I even went as far to look up some images on google. And I must say that several images resembled a circumcised penis MUCH more... so your claim is a bit.. odd.

I will note, however, that the health observations and the aesthetic observations pertaining to the dimensions of certain elements of the penis are not original to me. I recall reading them in a textbook on sexual health or some such that included a discussion of circumcision, found the arguments persuasive, and adopted them.

You've already crippled your credibility here by providing an escape route in case someone asks you to actually cite the reference, rather than just taking your word for it. Either be sure of your sources and stand by them, or don't use them.

Laugh if you must, but you will understand if I give your derision all the respect it is due.

Myyyy, u sure do tawk fancy!

You know.. based on this post I even went as far to look up some images on google. And I must say that several images resembled a circumcised penis MUCH more... so your claim is a bit.. odd.

To be fair, one generally notices animal genitalia when it's in a state of... er... excitement.

The "disproportionately small head" bit is still cracking me up, though. Penile head specs, stat!

To be fair, one generally notices animal genitalia when it's in a state of... er... excitement.

True. And of course, quite a few indeed have a foreskin and do look like our own natural product.
But nowhere near all. The animals prides come in many shapes and sizes ;) Corkscrew anyone ?

The "disproportionately small head" bit is still cracking me up, though. Penile head specs, stat!

No doubt some biology student somewhere did in fact graduate on that..

True. And of course, quite a few indeed have a foreskin and do look like our own natural product.
But nowhere near all. The animals prides come in many shapes and sizes ;) Corkscrew anyone ?
Some even have bones for more hardness, or spines for more sensation.

Some even have bones for more hardness, or spines for more sensation.

...

I am fascinated. Tell me more.

...

I am fascinated. Tell me more.
It's the baculum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum)! Found in most primates (but not humans <insert appropriate smiley here>). Still, human penises, despite lacking a bone, can still be subject to fracture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_fracture)!

And AFAIK cats have spines on their penises. I used to think they were for more stimulation, but according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Behavior), it was used to rake the female vagina to stimulate ovulation. Ouch. Perhaps that's why the neighborhood cats yelp and scream on the rooftops some nights.

Also here:
Anatomy of a Cat (http://www.purina.co.uk/Home/All+About+Cats/Cat+Care+Questions/Article+Archive+Cat/Anatomy+Of+A+Cat.htm)
Males also have a barbed penis, which will be painful for the female during mating.

1) Health reasons: e.g., reduced risk of smegma accumulation and penile cancer.

2) Aesthetic reasons: uncircumcised units resemble animal organs and have a higher percentage of disproportionately small heads.

1) Smegma is nothing some soap and water can't take care of.

2) Circumcised penii resemble the Channard cenobite in Hellraiser 2 after he was decapitated. It's all a matter of taste. I prefer the look of a natural penis and I know I'm not the only one. Where on earth did you get the idea that natural penii have smaller heads?

I nominate this as the most moronic post in the thread. Anyone to second it?

Maybe, but there are certainly some other close runners.

Meh! it's not a thing to fuss over really, do it or don't, it makes hardly any differance.

The same question could be asked about tat's or pierceings.

If the penis is removed and the mouth and anus sown up, the risk of catching HIV through sexual contact is greatly reduced.

It's healthier, depending on what gets mutilated.

Meh. Maybe it's healthier, but only for people who have strong objections to using soap.

I prefer to use soap in order to keep my glans clean.

It's the baculum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum)! Found in most primates (but not humans <insert appropriate smiley here>). Still, human penises, despite lacking a bone, ...

Though legend there has that Casanova didn't lack that bone. B)

1. I was referring to the doctors, not the "patients".

2. As far as I know Muslims do not *have* to circumcise their kids, it is just "praiseworthy". Jews must.

As such it would be vaguely interesting to know how many of the interviewed doctors in the report were Jews; though my response was mostly in jest referring to the claim the report was completely unbiased.

However, I concede that for a serious look at bias the number of muslims is also relevant.I'm aware that you were referring to the doctors. I don't see how that changes anything I posted.


*raises eyebrow*
Perhaps you should reread the thread ? The supposed "health reasons" have repeatedly been ripped apart.
Not really. The 'evidence' is being disputed, but there are few people who suggest that those who do it anyway are barbaric. It appears that it's perceived as more barbaric if done for cultural/religious reasons than flimsy medical ones.

Meh! it's not a thing to fuss over really, do it or don't, it makes hardly any differance.

The same question could be asked about tat's or pierceings.

...

Okay. Would you have your infants tatooed or pierced? Someone posted a great pic a while back of a baby with various facial piercings and a tat. Also biz-fucking-R.

...

Okay. Would you have your infants tatooed or pierced? Someone posted a great pic a while back of a baby with various facial piercings and a tat. Also biz-fucking-R.

I guess on that score it's an age thing. Both my boys asked for their ears pierced when they where about 6, I didn't say no. My odlest is 16 now and he and I have already discussed his first tat, but not for at least another two years.

What I meant though, is I see circumsicion as about the same level as pierceings or tats. I have no foreskin, I have no problem. It's not a big deal so leave it to personal preferance.

I guess on that score it's an age thing. Both my boys asked for their ears pierced when they where about 6, I didn't say no. My odlest is 16 now and he and I have already discussed his first tat, but not for at least another two years.

What I meant though, is I see circumsicion as about the same level as pierceings or tats. I have no foreskin, I have no problem. It's not a big deal so leave it to personal preferance.

At the same level of piercings or tats....neither of which, you admit, you would do to your infants. K, glad we're clear.

At the same level of piercings or tats....neither of which, you admit, you would do to your infants. K, glad we're clear.

Indeed, why would I do such a thing unasked?

Indeed, why would I do such a thing unasked?

So you would support circumcision, but only if asked for it.

What I question is how you address the fact that we don't see higher incidence of UTI among infants in countries where circumcision is virtually unheard of?

I don't know what the rates of UTI are in those countries. It's not generally a dangerous enough infection to warrant lots of discussion.

But if there aren't high rates of UTI in those countries, my best guess would be that it is, again, a hygiene thing. I don't have a penis, circumcised or uncircumcised, but I would guess that the care of the penis is different depending on circumcision. With the taboos in this country about genitalia, most parents are unlikely to ask a doctor if there is anything specific they should do to care for an uncircumcised penis. And, given the high rate of circumcision in this country, even your family doctor might not really know. If parents are less likely to keep an uncut penis properly clean, we would expect higher rates of UTI in those infants.

I personally think it's wrong to pierce a child's ears before the law allows them to render informed medical consent.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say they should be old enough to personally ask for it. The harm caused by ear piercing is so slight that I don't think you really need to wait until you're 18 to do it.

Of course, I may be a bit biased. I begged my mother (apparently to the point it was annoying) to let me get my ears pierced when I was younger. She let my aunt take me to have it done for my 6th birthday. I did the same thing for my second ear piercing, which I had done at age 12. She drew the line at ear piercings, though. I had to wait until I was 18 to get a navel ring.


I will admit, I'm a little biased due to the religious issue. That said, male circumcision is mandated by Jewish law. If it were to be banned in the United States, I think that we'd lose at least half of the American Jewish community.

That may be. But let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there were no evidence whatsoever for medical benefits due to circumcision. Can you give me a legal reason that parents should be allowed to cut pieces off of infants? A law against it wouldn't violate separation of church and state because it would be illegal for everyone, not just those who wanted to do it because of religion.

If it weren't your particular cultural practice, do you really think you'd agree with it?

I believe it is to mark us as Jews, and to separate us from non-Jews.

So....shouldn't that decision be up to the child, then? What if he grows up and decides not to be Jewish? (religiously, obviously. He can't change his ethnic background).

The Torah (Jewish Bible) states that G-d will cut off any Jewish male who is not circumcised. Not having Bris Milah (Brit Milah) is one of only two positive commandments in the Torah (Jewish Bible) which carry this severe punishment. When one has a Bris Milah (Brit Milah) and is circumcised in accordance with Jewish tradition, he will of course receive eternal rewards for his actions.

Um....he will receive eternal rewards for his actions of being a screaming baby? It isn't as if the infant decides to have it done.

So you would support circumcision, but only if asked for it.

I niether support it nor not, as I say it's a personal preferance. I don't see anything wrong with it. But I would not have it done to a kid unless he realy wanted it, and was old enough to understand the implicatons.

Can you give me a legal reason that parents should be allowed to cut pieces off of infants?

I don't know what you mean by a "legal reason", but certainly I can give you a reason: it's a religious practice that children born into the respective religion would have wanted done to them as infants, due to its immense religious importance as the signifier of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.

Those of us like me, who reject our religion of birth, are perhaps mistreated a bit by it, but the harm is insignificant enough that it's not really worth worrying about.

That may be. But let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there were no evidence whatsoever for medical benefits due to circumcision. Can you give me a legal reason that parents should be allowed to cut pieces off of infants? A law against it wouldn't violate separation of church and state because it would be illegal for everyone, not just those who wanted to do it because of religion.
Just a minor quibble...that's not how constitutional interpretation works. Just because it would be illegal for everyone, does not mean it could not be a violation of church and state. If you pass a law saying no one can hunt during a certain season, and the majority or only people hunting during that season an oh say, aboriginals, then the pith and substance of that law is to single out aboriginals, despite the generalised 'everyone' clause. It could very well be found to unduly target religious minorities if circumcision were flat out banned.

I don't know what you mean by a "legal reason", but certainly I can give you a reason: it's a religious practice that children born into the respective religion would have wanted done to them as infants, due to its immense religious importance as the signifier of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.

Those of us like me, who reject our religion of birth, are perhaps mistreated a bit by it, but the harm is insignificant enough that it's not really worth worrying about.

Compromise:
We allow circumcision of infants for religious reasons.
If, somewhere during adulthood, the infant decides that the religion in question is not for them and objects to the snip, they can demand 1 million dollars in compensation from the representatives of the religion in question.

Of course, if they later return to said religion, they must pay the money back with interest.

That's what I don't get. I get strong cultural or religious reasons to do it. I mean, I don't get it because I don't share that culture, but I understand why it would be taken for granted, expected, viewed positively, what have you. I don't get how this became a secular cultural practice here. I mean, come on. It's not like the Jews were ever massively popular, so the suggestion that we were emulating them falls a little flat. Until recently, there wasn't much of a Muslim population in the US and Canada. So what? How? Why? When? Who? 42?

I've read sources suggesting that one of the main reasons it caught on in the US was that people thought it made a boy less likely to masturbate. I don't know if I believe that, but it is one possible explanation.

I'm aware that you were referring to the doctors. I don't see how that changes anything I posted.

I guess that it was simply a quickly posted joke, rooted in my racist brain that links the words "doctor" and "Jews" vastly more quickly than "doctor" and "muslim". I will smack myself appropiately.

Compromise:
We allow circumcision of infants for religious reasons.
If, somewhere during adulthood, the infant decides that the religion in question is not for them and objects to the snip, they can demand 1 million dollars in compensation from the representatives of the religion in question.

Of course, if they later return to said religion, they must pay the money back with interest.

How did you arrive at $1 million? And what other things will we allow children to sue parents for?

Sounds like you're singling out religious practices here.

I guess that it was simply a quickly posted joke, rooted in my racist brain that links the words "doctor" and "Jews" vastly more quickly than "doctor" and "muslim". I will smack myself appropiately.

Good, because nothing perpetuates racist stereotypes like perpetuating racist stereotypes.

I don't know what you mean by a "legal reason", but certainly I can give you a reason: it's a religious practice that children born into the respective religion would have wanted done to them as infants, due to its immense religious importance as the signifier of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.

So it is your contention that every little boy born to Jewish parents will "have wanted" to have it done as an infant? That seems like a rather unsupported assumption.

If he ends up wanting the snip, he can get it when he's old enough to ask for it - to make a covenant between himself and God.

Those of us like me, who reject our religion of birth, are perhaps mistreated a bit by it, but the harm is insignificant enough that it's not really worth worrying about.

I disagree. I don't think parents should make permanent bodily changes to a child because he might adopt their religion when he's old enough, nor do I think we should say they have the "right" to do so.


Just a minor quibble...that's not how constitutional interpretation works. Just because it would be illegal for everyone, does not mean it could not be a violation of church and state. If you pass a law saying no one can hunt during a certain season, and the majority or only people hunting during that season an oh say, aboriginals, then the pith and substance of that law is to single out aboriginals, despite the generalised 'everyone' clause. It could very well be found to unduly target religious minorities if circumcision were flat out banned.

It generally depends on the reason used for the ban. If the reason were that the practice was found to be harmful, it wouldn't matter that it is more important to certain religions, just as it doesn't matter that certain religions incorporate drug use. Because the laws against drug use are secular in nature and were not made to target such religions, they don't violate separation of church and state.

Now, if someone were pushing an anti-circumcision bill specifically because they didn't like Jews or Muslims, yeah, that would be a constitutional violation.

(Note: I don't agree with all anti-drug laws. I'm just pointing out that they aren't 1st amendment issues in the US, as long as they apply equally to everyone).

Compromise:
We allow circumcision of infants for religious reasons.
If, somewhere during adulthood, the infant decides that the religion in question is not for them and objects to the snip, they can demand 1 million dollars in compensation from the representatives of the religion in question.

Monetary compensation is not such a bad idea.

How did you arrive at $1 million? And what other things will we allow children to sue parents for?

Sounds like you're singling out religious practices here.

Unless he would require compensation for other religious rituals like christening, it sounds more to me like he's singling out irreversible changes.

He's basically saying that a child could sue a parent for making an irreversible and unnecessary change to his body if it turns out that he wouldn't have chosen it himself. It does seem a bit unwieldy, but then, discussion of such things could be solved by waiting for him to actually make the decision for himself.

How did you arrive at $1 million?

It is a nice, impressive sounding number, that includes emotional damages.
However, one can of course set the amount lower. Or higher.

Sounds like you're singling out religious practices here.

Singling out - perhaps. But in a positive way. After all, this suggestion makes allowances for religious practices, by granting the religious more freedom to do things than others if their religion requires so. And it could even be expanded to irreversible changes in general, with no reference to religion whatsoever, if you really hate that idea.

However, there has to be a flipside. Having to compensate children if they dislike what you did seems quite fair.

But that is possibly because I value the rights of an individual to choose their own religion VASTLY higher than the rights of parents to force it on their children. An impopular concept.

It generally depends on the reason used for the ban. If the reason were that the practice was found to be harmful, it wouldn't matter that it is more important to certain religions, just as it doesn't matter that certain religions incorporate drug use. Because the laws against drug use are secular in nature and were not made to target such religions, they don't violate separation of church and state.

Now, if someone were pushing an anti-circumcision bill specifically because they didn't like Jews or Muslims, yeah, that would be a constitutional violation.

(Note: I don't agree with all anti-drug laws. I'm just pointing out that they aren't 1st amendment issues in the US, as long as they apply equally to everyone).Luckily, constitutional interpreation is nuanced enough that even when people aren't necessarily overtly discriminating against a certain group, discrimination can be found based on the impact of a piece of proposed or existing legislation. So no, intent is not everything...the impact is equally, if not more, important.

People keep acting like there needs to be a reason why parents should circumcise their kids in order for it not to be banned. That's not how governmental policy generally works. The status quo is that the government DOES NOT interfere in peoples lives UNLESS there is a gain to society that outweighs the cost and hassle of interfering in parents lives.

However, there has to be a flipside. Having to compensate children if they dislike what you did seems quite fair. Yes, well if you want to ignore the obvious incentive to make claims whether one really feels slighted or not by the practice...

Yeah no. Let's not delve into la la land thusly thanks.

But that is possibly because I value the rights of an individual to choose their own religion VASTLY higher than the rights of parents to force it on their children. An unpopular concept.
Perhaps better stated, a very difficult concept to put into practice. Circumcision is an obviously irreversible (well without a lot of work) choice...but unless you restrict your ideas about individual choice only (as Dem said) to the irreversible, then you are greatly limiting the ability of parents to make everyday decisions about their children, and/or their own religious/cultural practices.

So it is your contention that every little boy born to Jewish parents will "have wanted" to have it done as an infant?

No. Nor is it what I actually said.

If he ends up wanting the snip, he can get it when he's old enough to ask for it

It's not a matter of "the snip", it's a matter of being circumcised in the religiously obligatory and traditional manner. Converts are supposed to get late circumcisions. People born Jews are supposed to be circumcised on the eight day.

permanent bodily changes to a child

What of it? It's harmless, it doesn't (really) impair function... sure, it shouldn't be done arbitrarily, or at the parents' whim, but as part of a long-standing cultural and religious tradition in which the child will most likely play a part? I have a hard time seeing any problem with that.

It generally depends on the reason used for the ban.

Yes, but it's not a matter of "harm." Free exercise rights amount to more than equal protection. To practice your religion is a constitutionally-protected interest against which government justifications more compelling than ordinarily must be leveled. That's why the Amish can get out of compulsory education beyond a certain level.

People keep acting like there needs to be a reason why parents should circumcise their kids in order for it not to be banned. That's not how governmental policy generally works. The status quo is that the government DOES NOT interfere in peoples lives UNLESS there is a gain to society that outweighs the cost and hassle of interfering in parents lives.

Well you're right, and wrong. Now that it is an accepted practice, there would have to be a compelling argument made to pass a law disallowing it.

However, female genital mutilation is not allowed here, right? Not even the least invasive, clit-hood removal. I doubt you would actually find specific laws saying this, however...the practice would likely fall under general laws in regards to the welfare of children. Were parents to wish this procedure for their children, they would have to make a compelling case for it being allowed.

So it sort of works both ways. Right now, male circumcision is allowed, and common, so the burden of proof is on those who wish it banned.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say they should be old enough to personally ask for it. The harm caused by ear piercing is so slight that I don't think you really need to wait until you're 18 to do it.

Of course, I may be a bit biased. I begged my mother (apparently to the point it was annoying) to let me get my ears pierced when I was younger. She let my aunt take me to have it done for my 6th birthday. I did the same thing for my second ear piercing, which I had done at age 12. She drew the line at ear piercings, though. I had to wait until I was 18 to get a navel ring.
The age of consent to medical treatment isn't 18 in all states. Some piercing studios will pierce 16 year olds (possibly even younger) in the state of Oregon with parental consent.

With the dangers of piercing guns (http://stason.org/TULARC/art/body-art/piercing/3-3-Ear-Piercing-Gun.html), it really shouldn't be done outside a studio anyway (although the good news is newer guns at least reduce the risk of blood bourne pathogens).

Ultimately, it just seems the most reasonable from the legal standpoint. I'm sure, however, if I had a little girl who was bugging me 24/7 for earrings, I might have a different opinion.

Luckily, constitutional interpreation is nuanced enough that even when people aren't necessarily overtly discriminating against a certain group, discrimination can be found based on the impact of a piece of proposed or existing legislation. So no, intent is not everything...the impact is equally, if not more, important.

It shouldn't. If the government has a good reason to ban a particular practice, the fact that some people feel more strongly about doing it shouldn't matter.

Meanwhile, this may be a difference in US and Canadian law. Laws against Peyote use pretty much unarguably impact certain Native American groups more than anyone else. However, they have not been ruled unconstitutional. In fact, they have been specifically upheld - largely on the basis that the laws were not specifically targeted against Native American groups and, in fact, apply equally to everyone.


People keep acting like there needs to be a reason why parents should circumcise their kids in order for it not to be banned. That's not how governmental policy generally works. The status quo is that the government DOES NOT interfere in peoples lives UNLESS there is a gain to society that outweighs the cost and hassle of interfering in parents lives.

Government does interfere when one person does something to another person without their consent.

I agree that the government should not interfere if any adult wants to be circumcised. But that doesn't necessarily extend to an adult circumcising someone else.


No. Nor is it what I actually said.

If it isn't, then I don't think it matters. The fact that they might want it done when they're older doesn't mean that they will. As such, I don't think it's up to the parents to have it done early.


It's not a matter of "the snip", it's a matter of being circumcised in the religiously obligatory and traditional manner. Converts are supposed to get late circumcisions. People born Jews are supposed to be circumcised on the eight day.

That is tradition, yes. But tradition can and does change. If infant circumcision were illegal, Jews in that country would either have to routinely break the law, or adapt their traditions. They could, for instance, incorporate circumcision into a bar mitzvah - when the boy could choose it for himself.

The society in which this tradition began was also one in which individuals were allowed to own slaves (and even to sell their daughters into slavery), in which women were expected to marry men who raped them and were forcibly given abortificants if they were suspected of adultery, and all sorts of other things we tend to find horrific today. It quite clearly wasn't a society that valued individual choice as much as we do.

What of it? It's harmless, it doesn't (really) impair function... sure, it shouldn't be done arbitrarily, or at the parents' whim, but as part of a long-standing cultural and religious tradition in which the child will most likely play a part? I have a hard time seeing any problem with that.

(a) Cutting off a body part is not harmless. It may be relatively innocuous, but it isn't harmless.

(b) From a legal standpoint, I don't see a difference between "at the parents' whim" and "as part of a long-standing cultural and religious tradition". It isn't being done due to the child's religion. It is being done due to the parent's religion. That really isn't qualitatively different from "at the parent's whim."

Yes, but it's not a matter of "harm." Free exercise rights amount to more than equal protection. To practice your religion is a constitutionally-protected interest against which government justifications more compelling than ordinarily must be leveled. That's why the Amish can get out of compulsory education beyond a certain level.

Indeed. But if the conclusion were reached that there were no benefits to circumcision, I think we'd have pretty clearly met the bar on that. After all, we've banned other cultural and religious practices that involve cutting bits off of children. Most people scoff at the suggestion that such bans violate the separation of church and state.


Well you're right, and wrong. Now that it is an accepted practice, there would have to be a compelling argument made to pass a law disallowing it.

However, female genital mutilation is not allowed here, right? Not even the least invasive, clit-hood removal. I doubt you would actually find specific laws saying this, however...the practice would likely fall under general laws in regards to the welfare of children. Were parents to wish this procedure for their children, they would have to make a compelling case for it being allowed.

So it sort of works both ways. Right now, male circumcision is allowed, and common, so the burden of proof is on those who wish it banned.


That seems a little bass-ackwards, doesn't it? Two fairly similar procedures, but it's ok for one to be banned just because less people here want to do it?

The age of consent to medical treatment isn't 18 in all states. Some piercing studios will pierce 16 year olds (possibly even younger) in the state of Oregon with parental consent.

Outside of reproductive medicine, 18 generally is the medical age of consent.

And, if 16 year-olds need parental consent to get pierced, that makes it quite obvious that the state of Oregon does not recognize their own consent as legally valid.

Ultimately, it just seems the most reasonable from the legal standpoint. I'm sure, however, if I had a little girl who was bugging me 24/7 for earrings, I might have a different opinion.

hehe

I think a child who is old enough to ask for it is old enough to have it done - with parental consent. But the exact place to draw the line is, of course, up for debate.

If it isn't, then I don't think it matters. The fact that they might want it done when they're older doesn't mean that they will.

No... but this is true about anything at all parents do for or to their children prior to their capacity to consent. Including not having them circumcised.

It's impossible for the child to choose at eight days. So you make a reasonable guess as to what the child would want.

That is tradition, yes. But tradition can and does change.

It is not just "tradition." Eating matza balls in chicken soup is "tradition." Circumcision on the eighth day is religious obligation, and not just any religious obligation but one of the most important and fundamental. It's not something that can just be tinkered with, religiously speaking.

It quite clearly wasn't a society that valued individual choice as much as we do.

So?

(a) Cutting off a body part is not harmless. It may be relatively innocuous, but it isn't harmless.

Semantically, you're splitting hairs here. Presumably what you mean is that it has a non-negligible effect even if that effect rarely garners a feeling of violation or offense. But the standard in a liberal society by which we evaluate "harm" is generally precisely that feeling: we prefer to judge acts by the way those subject to them react, rather than by the paternalistic judgments of those who insist that everyone value the particular things they do.

(b) From a legal standpoint, I don't see a difference between "at the parents' whim" and "as part of a long-standing cultural and religious tradition". It isn't being done due to the child's religion. It is being done due to the parent's religion. That really isn't qualitatively different from "at the parent's whim."

Well, first, from a legal standpoint you're wrong, because free exercise of religion is protected constitutionally and free exercise of secular whim is not.

Second, my point does not even concern this aspect: I don't care about the parents' religious beliefs, I care about the fact that to ban circumcision would be to impair the child's capacity to participate in the religious and cultural traditions into which the child was born.

Indeed. But if the conclusion were reached that there were no benefits to circumcision, I think we'd have pretty clearly met the bar on that.

Actually, I doubt it. We give parents sovereignty over far more important questions of health and education, ones that actually have large effects on their children's future lives. In that context, trampling on fundamental religious rituals to stop people from cutting off a little bit of flesh? I don't think I'd be betting on your side of that court case.

Meh! it's not a thing to fuss over really, do it or don't, it makes hardly any differance.

The same question could be asked about tat's or pierceings.

Mutilating babies isn't something to fuss over? Cutting parts of the sex organs of unwilling victims doesn't make a difference?

You must go to some pretty freaky parties.

No... but this is true about anything at all parents do for or to their children prior to their capacity to consent. Including not having them circumcised.

It's impossible for the child to choose at eight days. So you make a reasonable guess as to what the child would want.

If the child can't choose at 8 days, then it shouldn't be done at 8 days except for medical reasons. Especially when there's no reason whatsoever that it can't be done later.

And spare me the justification that the child will "probably" want it later. The parents have it done because they want it done - because of their religion - not because of any consideration for what the child may one day want.

It is not just "tradition." Eating matza balls in chicken soup is "tradition." Circumcision on the eighth day is religious obligation, and not just any religious obligation but one of the most important and fundamental. It's not something that can just be tinkered with, religiously speaking.

Lots of things that supposedly couldn't be tinkered with, religiously speaking, have been. Lots of things that were believed to be absolute have been re-thought by later religious leaders.

And it doesn't really matter in the end anyways. If there isn't a secular reason for cutting bits off other people, it doesn't suddenly become ok if your religion says so.

So?

So we don't necessarily need to allow the things that it condoned or required. We don't let Jewish men sell their daughters into slavery just because their religion said it was ok. We don't let them commit genocide or force abortions on women. We don't let them force women to marry their rapists or stone people who engage in adultery.

If we determined that circumcision definitely had no medical benefits, we wouldn't need to let them cut the foreskin off their children either.

Semantically, you're splitting hairs here. Presumably what you mean is that it has a non-negligible effect even if that effect rarely garners a feeling of violation or offense. But the standard in a liberal society by which we evaluate "harm" is generally precisely that feeling: we prefer to judge acts by the way those subject to them react, rather than by the paternalistic judgments of those who insist that everyone value the particular things they do.

Actually, we quite often determine that something is harm regardless of what the victim thinks - especially with children. Many crimes can be prosecuted even if the person who was harmed does not wish for them to be (although it is often difficult to do so if the victim won't cooperate).

Meanwhile, what I mean is that it is cutting a living, functional body part off of a child. To argue that this isn't harm is ridiculous. The question is whether or not it is justifiable harm, not whether or not it is harm.

Well, first, from a legal standpoint you're wrong, because free exercise of religion is protected constitutionally and free exercise of secular whim is not.

However, a law that makes something illegal without regard to religion is not unconstitutional simply because a religion wants to engage in it.

Second, my point does not even concern this aspect: I don't care about the parents' religious beliefs, I care about the fact that to ban circumcision would be to impair the child's capacity to participate in the religious and cultural traditions into which the child was born.

Hence the reason I wasn't talking about banning circumcision completely. I was simply talking about ensuring that the decision is up to the person being circumcised. An infant has no capacity with which to participate in religious and cultural traditions, so no such capacity is being impaired.

No matter how you argue it, infant circumcision for religious reasons is carried out based on the religious beliefs of the parent, not the child. The child does not yet have such beliefs.

Meanwhile, you do realize that all of your arguments could also be used for forms of FGM, right?

Actually, I doubt it. We give parents sovereignty over far more important questions of health and education, ones that actually have large effects on their children's future lives. In that context, trampling on fundamental religious rituals to stop people from cutting off a little bit of flesh? I don't think I'd be betting on your side of that court case.

In what other instance do we let parents cut off living, functional pieces of their children without medical justification?

If there were a relatively new religion that cut off their earlobes as a sign of their religious faith, do you think anyone would have a problem with keeping parents from doing it to infants?

Ugghh when I started reading this I was reminded of an episode of house that I saw. Now I'm thinking about it gahhh.

It shouldn't. If the government has a good reason to ban a particular practice, the fact that some people feel more strongly about doing it shouldn't matter.

Meanwhile, this may be a difference in US and Canadian law. Laws against Peyote use pretty much unarguably impact certain Native American groups more than anyone else. However, they have not been ruled unconstitutional. In fact, they have been specifically upheld - largely on the basis that the laws were not specifically targeted against Native American groups and, in fact, apply equally to everyone.
No, it's not really a difference in the law between Canada and the US, since we take a page from the US on constitutional interpretation, but this is not the place to get into the discussion. I just wanted to point out it's not a simple as you've described it. It has nothing to do with 'feeling more strongly about doing it'. It has to do with balancing constitutional rights that sometimes come into conflict with one another. Anyway.


That seems a little bass-ackwards, doesn't it? Two fairly similar procedures, but it's ok for one to be banned just because less people here want to do it? Welcome to how laws work. Social norms play a large part in their formation and implementation. If you, practically speaking, wished change, you would have to prove that male circumucision were dangerous and should be stopped. You could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary after, but the onus is on you. If you wanted to propose that female circumcision should be legal, you'd have to make the positive case that it should be allowed. The law doesn't like changing.

No, it's not really a difference in the law between Canada and the US, since we take a page from the US on constitutional interpretation, but this is not the place to get into the discussion. I just wanted to point out it's not a simple as you've described it. It has nothing to do with 'feeling more strongly about doing it'. It has to do with balancing constitutional rights that sometimes come into conflict with one another. Anyway.

And I would argue that constitutional rights apply to the individual. Enforcement of religion on someone else - particularly in a permanent manner - shouldn't be covered.

Welcome to how laws work. Social norms play a large part in their formation and implementation. If you, practically speaking, wished change, you would have to prove that male circumucision were dangerous and should be stopped. You could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary after, but the onus is on you. If you wanted to propose that female circumcision should be legal, you'd have to make the positive case that it should be allowed. The law doesn't like changing.

Maybe not, but it shouldn't be inconsistent. If cutting off an infant's foreskin were allowable without medical justification, cutting off any other bit of the body with equivalent or lesser harm should be equally legal. If those other things are illegal, cutting off the foreskin should be as well.

The fact that lots of people do it really shouldn't come into it if the law is inconsistent.

(Meanwhile, I would also argue that the onus should always be on the person arguing to make something illegal to provide evidence that it should be - whether it is currently legal or not. If the government doesn't have a good reason for making something illegal, any existing law that does so should be immediately repealed.

However, in this case, cutting living body parts off your children for non-medical reasons is already illegal. So I would say the onus is on the person who wants to allow foreskin removal to provide a reason that there should be a specific exception for that particular body part.)

And I would argue that constitutional rights apply to the individual. Enforcement of religion on someone else - particularly in a permanent manner - shouldn't be covered.



Maybe not, but it shouldn't be inconsistent. If cutting off an infant's foreskin were allowable without medical justification, cutting off any other bit of the body with equivalent or lesser harm should be equally legal. If those other things are illegal, cutting off the foreskin should be as well.

The fact that lots of people do it really shouldn't come into it if the law is inconsistent.

The last time I was at the nations capital there were people on capital hill protesting circumcision. None of their arguments were this logical though.

Maybe not, but it shouldn't be inconsistent. If cutting off an infant's foreskin were allowable without medical justification, cutting off any other bit of the body with equivalent or lesser harm should be equally legal. If those other things are illegal, cutting off the foreskin should be as well.
Yeah...cuz that's totally how the law works.

Sorry, shouldn't have gone down this route, it was bound to get pointless.

No offence, but I'm not interested in the debate of how it should be, I was just pointing out how you'd actually have to fight it, were you so inclined.

Yeah...cuz that's totally how the law works.

Sorry, shouldn't have gone down this route, it was bound to get pointless.

No offence, but I'm not interested in the debate of how it should be, I was just pointing out how you'd actually have to fight it, were you so inclined.

If you want anything about the law or current legal interpretation to change, you have to fight it out. I don't see how that point is relevant. People who wanted sodomy to be legal had to fight it, despite the fact that the government never had any business making a consensual sexual act illegal in the first place. People who wanted beating your wife up to be an offense that was actually prosecuted had to fight for that, despite the fact that beating up someone else would have already been illegal. And so on...

I would argue that inconsistency in the law is, in and of itself, enough legal justification to see it changed. Exactly how that change comes about is another question.

If you want anything about the law or current legal interpretation to change, you have to fight it out. I don't see how that point is relevant. People who wanted sodomy to be legal had to fight it, despite the fact that the government never had any business making a consensual sexual act illegal in the first place. People who wanted beating your wife up to be an offense that was actually prosecuted had to fight for that, despite the fact that beating up someone else would have already been illegal. And so on... You...don't see how the point of, "this is what you'd actually have to do to fight it"...is relevant...to fighting it.

Well then. Carry on with your own bad self, up there in what ever tra-la-la theoretical wonderland you currently reside in.


I would argue that inconsistency in the law is, in and of itself, enough legal justification to see it changed. Exactly how that change comes about is another question.

Which is why you wouldn't actually be the one making the arguments. You'd have to hire someone qualified to do that.

People keep acting like there needs to be a reason why parents should circumcise their kids in order for it not to be banned.
Wha.....!

Are you seriously saying that you don't think one needs a very, VERY good reason to irreversibly surgically mutilate a child's genitals?!?


That's not how governmental policy generally works. The status quo is that the government DOES NOT interfere in peoples lives UNLESS there is a gain to society that outweighs the cost and hassle of interfering in parents lives.
This isn't "interfering in parents lives!" It's interceding on behalf of a child to safeguard a very basic human right and dignity.

You...don't see how the point of, "this is what you'd actually have to do to fight it"...is relevant...to fighting it.

I don't see how you think it's a novel concept or anything I don't understand. I never suggested that the law magically changes all on its own, but you seem to think it's some sort of major point to say that one would have to fight to change it.

Which is why you wouldn't actually be the one making the arguments. You'd have to hire someone qualified to do that.

And that qualified someone could argue that the law is inconsistent. (They probably wouldn't use that exact word, but that's what the argument would boil down to.) That would shift the burden over to the state to justify that inconsistency. If no valid justification was put forth, the law would likely be overturned (asuming an impartial judge which is theoretically the way the legal system works but is, of course, not really completely possible).

Dempublicents, if the government did ban infant circumcision, I might propose a very likely response of the Jewish population:

Leave.

If infant circumcision became illegal in the United States, we might just see a mass emigration of American Jews, probably to Israel. I'm not talking about a few hardcore Jews. I'm talking about the bulk of the Jewish community leaving. Certainly the Orthodox population of the US would vanish practically overnight.

In my opinion, this is far more likely than simply adapting. Circumcision at eight days is a fundamental religious obligation - more important than, for example, keeping kosher. Yes, many Jews (virtually all Reform) would stay and alter their practices, but the majority would not. And I imagine the Muslim response would be similar.

And if you haven't figured it out, I would be among those leaving.

This may not be a good reason not to ban infant circumcision. I just thought it was worth saying - if infant circumcision is banned, the Jews will leave. And we'd probably take all the good bagel stores with us.

Dempublicents, if the government did ban infant circumcision, I might propose a very likely response of the Jewish population:

Leave.

Isn't that the same proposition people pose to other religions who want to enforce their religion on other non-consenting people?

If the bulk of the Jewish population can't respect the rights of their children, maybe they should leave.

This may not be a good reason not to ban infant circumcision. I just thought it was worth saying - if infant circumcision is banned, the Jews will leave. And we'd probably take all the good bagel stores with us.

That part would be unfortunate. =( I like good bagels and lox.

Dempublicents, if the government did ban infant circumcision, I might propose a very likely response of the Jewish population:

Leave.

If infant circumcision became illegal in the United States, we might just see a mass emigration of American Jews, probably to Israel. I'm not talking about a few hardcore Jews. I'm talking about the bulk of the Jewish community leaving. Certainly the Orthodox population of the US would vanish practically overnight.

In my opinion, this is far more likely than simply adapting. Circumcision at eight days is a fundamental religious obligation - more important than, for example, keeping kosher. Yes, many Jews (virtually all Reform) would stay and alter their practices, but the majority would not. And I imagine the Muslim response would be similar.

And if you haven't figured it out, I would be among those leaving.

This may not be a good reason not to ban infant circumcision. I just thought it was worth saying - if infant circumcision is banned, the Jews will leave. And we'd probably take all the good bagel stores with us.

Make posters. You'll increase support for a ban in markets otherwise unreachable. Thanks.

You...don't see how the point of, "this is what you'd actually have to do to fight it"...is relevant...to fighting it.

Well then. Carry on with your own bad self, up there in what ever tra-la-la theoretical wonderland you currently reside in.


Which is why you wouldn't actually be the one making the arguments. You'd have to hire someone qualified to do that.

Couldn't you argue that allowing male circumcision but not female when done in a hospital with the same level of safety is promoting one religious practice over another? It seems like the simple fact we allow one and not the other is violating religious freedom by judging the value of one's practices as compared to the other.

Dempublicents, if the government did ban infant circumcision, I might propose a very likely response of the Jewish population:

Leave.

If infant circumcision became illegal in the United States, we might just see a mass emigration of American Jews, probably to Israel. I'm not talking about a few hardcore Jews. I'm talking about the bulk of the Jewish community leaving. Certainly the Orthodox population of the US would vanish practically overnight.

In my opinion, this is far more likely than simply adapting. Circumcision at eight days is a fundamental religious obligation - more important than, for example, keeping kosher. Yes, many Jews (virtually all Reform) would stay and alter their practices, but the majority would not. And I imagine the Muslim response would be similar.

And if you haven't figured it out, I would be among those leaving.

This may not be a good reason not to ban infant circumcision. I just thought it was worth saying - if infant circumcision is banned, the Jews will leave. And we'd probably take all the good bagel stores with us.

And Christians will leave if gay marriage is allowed. Or would leave when interracial marriage was allowed. Or when women were allowed to vote.

The question is, how many even moved to another state?

Couldn't you argue that allowing male circumcision but not female when done in a hospital with the same level of safety is promoting one religious practice over another? It seems like the simple fact we allow one and not the other is violating religious freedom by judging the value of one's practices as compared to the other.

True this.

And Christians will leave if gay marriage is allowed. Or would leave when interracial marriage was allowed. Or when women were allowed to vote.

The question is, how many even moved to another state?

This is different. Banning infant circumcision would directly impair the ability of Jews to practice their religion. This is what would drive them out of the country. Allowing gay marriage does not impair the ability of Christians to practice their religion.

This is different. Banning infant circumcision would directly impair the ability of Jews to practice their religion. This is what would drive them out of the country. Allowing gay marriage does not impair the ability of Christians to practice their religion.

waah waah ..mutilating babies.. waah waah... my religion...

Finding it really hard to care.

It's a shame people ignored my link on foreskin reconstruction :(

This is different. Banning infant circumcision would directly impair the ability of Jews to practice their religion. This is what would drive them out of the country. Allowing gay marriage does not impair the ability of Christians to practice their religion.

Again, new arguments would be nice. Yes, yes, it's all gonna chase you out of the country. Forgive me if I don't particularly worry about the threatened emmigration of any group doing so on the threat of a new law protecting the rights of others.

Uh, wait, I mean, please, oh, please don't take off on us. It's a totally credible threat. I'm terrified.

Get away from me with your disgusting, mutilated penis, Jocabia. Sheesh.

Get away from me with your disgusting, mutilated penis, Jocabia. Sheesh.

Seriously. Without the circumcision it would be almost 10 inches.

EDIT: By the way, you get all pissed when I'm harsh and whatnot, but when I post reasonably and calmly you don't even address it. I swear you're just trying jump on me when I'm not paying attention.

Seriously. Without the circumcision it would be almost 10 inches.

EDIT: By the way, you get all pissed when I'm harsh and whatnot, but when I post reasonably and calmly you don't even address it. I swear you're just trying jump on me when I'm not paying attention.

I'm busy. I'll address your calm and reasonable idiocies later.

I'm busy. I'll address your calm and reasonable idiocies later.

In the meantime, I'm gonna eat a ceasar salad.

Explain male genital mutilation to me.
Well, i9t's where male genitals are mutilated... :p
Especially among those who do not do it for religious reasons.
People are stupid
Why is this practice still around,
People are stupid
and will any of you, as parents, perpetuate it?
Hell fucking no.

Outside of reproductive medicine, 18 generally is the medical age of consent.

And, if 16 year-olds need parental consent to get pierced, that makes it quite obvious that the state of Oregon does not recognize their own consent as legally valid.
I was wrong about it being 16, it's actually 15. www.oregon.gov/BCSW/pdfs/Age_Of_Majority.pdf

I think the piercing studios do it in a way to cover their asses. There's something in Oregon law about a parent not being able to sign away the rights of a child, yet everyone kind of worries that a 16 year old signing a waiver might not hold up in court.



hehe

I think a child who is old enough to ask for it is old enough to have it done - with parental consent. But the exact place to draw the line is, of course, up for debate.
That is a hard one. I do think there needs to be a minimum age, but maybe 15 (in my state's case) is a little old. Then again, if no other children had their ears pierced, would it still be such a big deal to the child?

Again, new arguments would be nice. Yes, yes, it's all gonna chase you out of the country. Forgive me if I don't particularly worry about the threatened emmigration of any group doing so on the threat of a new law protecting the rights of others.

Uh, wait, I mean, please, oh, please don't take off on us. It's a totally credible threat. I'm terrified.

Look, I don't have any arguments left on circumcision. If it were not a religious commandment, I would not condone it. But it is, so I must.

I do maintain my belief that the bulk of the Jewish community would immigrate if it were banned. I stated in my earlier post that this wasn't necessarily a reason not to ban circumcision. If I look at it from a neutral perspective, it isn't. I was replying to those who thought that the Jews could simply adapt our customs.

Here's why the Jews will immigrate. The bulk of the Jewish community is not going to give up circumcision anytime soon. If it is banned in the United States, then it will become impossible for a Jew to live in the United States and fully observe Jewish law.

There is one option that doesn't involve emigrating - going abroad for circumcision. This might be a short-term solution, but unless you live near the Canadian or Mexican border, traveling abroad is a little expensive. On top of it, I imagine the US government might not turn a blind eye to people regularly going abroad to carry out an act that is illegal in the US, and then returning once it is done. Depending on the wording of the law, they might be able to prosecute the families anyway.

With that possibility eliminated, the only long-term solution is to leave the US permanently. This is what I believe most families will do. I'm pretty certain that the Orthodox community will leave as soon as the law is put into force, possibly sooner. Some people will stay until they have a boy, then leave. Within one generation, the majority of the American Jewish community will be gone. Those who remain will be Jews who will not have any more children, or families with only daughters.

Now, when that happens, it becomes harder for those who remain. The reason Jews tend to congregate is because it is easier to practice Judaism if you have a Jewish community around. If the majority of the American Jews have left, then those communities will be weakened. Synagogues will close when their membership becomes incapable of maintaining the building. Finding religious schooling will become virtually impossible. And you can forget about relying on the minority that does abandon circumcision - there's going to be a major schism over that issue.

Most of those families will probably leave anyway. Their daughters almost certainly will, if they want to find a nice Jewish boy to marry (and not an uncircumcised apikoros).

Two generations later, the only Jews left will be those that do not practice circumcision. And there won't be a lot of them.

Israel, on the other hand, will probably benefit, since the vast majority of American Jews will move there. There will be issues with the population of Israel going from around 7 million to something like 12 million in a few short years, but the immigrants won't be poor (not most of them). They'll have money and skills. They'll start businesses, maybe found a kibbutz or two.