View Full Version : Debate: - Circumcision, yes or no?
InsaneApache
05-10-2009, 23:02
Is it right to subject babies to multilation in this way? After all they have no say in the matter!
I belive that circumcision is immoral and cruel. I move that we make circumcision prohibited unless there are compelling medical gounds.
Over to you gentlemen.
rory_20_uk
05-10-2009, 23:17
It does reduce infection and cancer.
there's no reason that it has to be performed on children. So why not delay and let the individual decide.
~:smoking:
Marshal Murat
05-10-2009, 23:19
Hitler was circumcised. Jews aren't.
You draw the conclusion.
Che Roriniho
05-10-2009, 23:27
It does reduce infection and cancer.
there's no reason that it has to be performed on children. So why not delay and let the individual decide.
~:smoking:
Hear hear.
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:37
Hitler was circumcised. Jews aren't.
You draw the conclusion.
um, say again?
by jewish law we are circumcised, like a conevant to G-d.
KukriKhan
05-10-2009, 23:39
It does reduce infection and cancer.
there's no reason that it has to be performed on children. So why not delay and let the individual decide.
~:smoking:
I'll back the doc on this one.
Marshal Murat
05-10-2009, 23:39
by jewish law we are circumcised, like a conevant to G-d.
I'm just going to say: EPIC FAIL
Samurai Waki
05-10-2009, 23:40
Let the individual decide.
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:41
I'm just going to say: EPIC FAIL
oh, jeez, dont be like Che. be respectful to other, please.
CountArach
05-10-2009, 23:44
I wish I had've been given the choice, yet my mother's Judaism took it from me. I really don't care that much, but there are times that I feel that religion has personally wronged me by taking away my free will.
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:47
I wish I had've been given the choice, yet my mother's Judaism took it from me. I really don't care that much, but there are times that I feel that religion has personally wronged me by taking away my free will.
well, thats from the perspective of a non-practicing jew.
on another note:
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
CountArach
05-10-2009, 23:48
well, thats from the perspective of a non-practicing jew.
Yes... so why should I follow the biblical scripture?
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:51
Yes... so why should I follow the biblical scripture?
did i say you had to?
im all for letting circumcision a choice, but banning it? nah.
CountArach
05-10-2009, 23:52
did i say you had to?
No, so why quote it at me?
im all for letting circumcision a choice, but banning it? nah.
Did I say it should be banned? It is a perfectly reasonable medical procedure.
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:54
actually i shouldve mentioned that i was aiming that Bible quote at Mashal Murat.
Hooahguy
05-10-2009, 23:56
Yes. Snip it. Twice!
i should sig that, but my sig is pretty full as it is.
:laugh4:
Marshal Murat
05-10-2009, 23:58
Hooah, I've misposted. I meant to say, that I "epic failed" due to an incorrect post on my part. I wasn't saying that circumcision was an "epic fail". Does that clear it up?
FactionHeir
05-10-2009, 23:58
Female Circumcision = Female Genital Mutilation = Big Outrage
Male Circumcision = encouraged
Someone see the inequality? :grin:
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 00:01
Hooah, I've misposted. I meant to say, that I "epic failed" due to an incorrect post on my part. I wasn't saying that circumcision was an "epic fail". Does that clear it up?
aha. thanks for the confirmation.
also, wasnt it proven that cirumcision reduces the chance of infection?
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 00:02
Female Circumcision = Female Genital Mutilation = Big Outrage
Male Circumcision = encouraged
Someone see the inequality? :grin:
b/c female circumcision makes it very painful to have sex, or so i hear, while male circumcision has no painful effects on sex- at least for me.
It does reduce infection and cancer.
Plus it's more hygenic and can reduce your chances of contracting an STD. If I have a son, the wife and I agree that we'll have him circumcised.
there's no reason that it has to be performed on children. So why not delay and let the individual decide.No good reason that it has to be, but I can think of good reasons why it should be- as an adult having stitches there would interfere with your life alot more than it would as an infant. Seriously, I don't think I have to spell it out- you've got stitches for 4-6 weeks. :sweatdrop:
It's not a medical necessity- so leave it up to the parents. But, there are plenty of good reasons to have it done and few not to. :shrug:
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 00:06
i heard somewhere that muslims get it at age 8-13?
glad we jews get it at 8 days old.
Hosakawa Tito
05-11-2009, 00:11
Yes. Snip it. Twice!
Heh, I remember doing that accidently as a young lad. Always wear tighty-whitey's with cut-off jeans when swimming, trust me on that one.
I'd go with Doc Rory on the medical/sexual hygeine part, but I can't imagine voluntarily having it done as an adult. who'da thought such an itty-bitty piece of skin would be connected to every nerve in your body...
FactionHeir
05-11-2009, 00:12
b/c female circumcision makes it very painful to have sex, or so i hear, while male circumcision has no painful effects on sex- at least for me.
Only type III/IV. Type I and II do not close up the vagina and are pretty comparable to male circumcision.
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 00:15
Only type III/IV. Type I and II do not close up the vagina and are pretty comparable to male circumcision.
then im guessing that most people do not know that, like i did not know until just now, and think that all female circumcision is makes it painful.
Rhyfelwyr
05-11-2009, 00:26
It's not always a religious thing is it? I heard most male folks in the USA got it done.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 00:28
Is it right to subject babies to multilation in this way? After all they have no say in the matter!
I belive that circumcision is immoral and cruel. I move that we make circumcision prohibited unless there are compelling medical gounds.
Over to you gentlemen.
Consenting adults are allowed to injure themselves, provided they are of sound enough mind to understand what they're doing. I'd say circumcision should fall under this. Children shouldn't be circumcised, for they are not yet responsible for their own welfare. Mentally handicapped adults shouldn't be circumcised, for they're not responsible enough to make these decisions either. Other than that, if an adult wants to be circumcised, it's their choice.
ajaxfetish
05-11-2009, 00:49
Where's Lemur? His genital-mutilation-thread spider sense must be out of whack for him not to be here yet.
I'd say let parents decide, but I'd encourage a choice not to absent medical or religious grounds and suggest seriously considering and questioning the procedure even on the religious grounds. I won't have any sons (or daughters) of mine circumcised. And as for the widespread nature of male circumcision in the US, I understand that started as an attempt to inhibit masturbation. It's pretty much a cultural tradition now.
Ajax
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-11-2009, 01:13
Is it right to subject babies to multilation in this way? After all they have no say in the matter!
I belive that circumcision is immoral and cruel. I move that we make circumcision prohibited unless there are compelling medical gounds.
Generally agreed, though I would support it only being prohibited for those under the age of majority, and after eighteen you can have one for any reason you like.
And as for the widespread nature of male circumcision in the US, I understand that started as an attempt to inhibit masturbation. It's pretty much a cultural tradition now.It was WWI. Soldiers were circumcised, hoping to decrease the incidence of venereal disease. Now days, it's traditional.
Mongoose
05-11-2009, 01:35
One word: chaffing. It should definitely be banned. To hell with tradition. If someone today declared that he was forming a union with God by cutting off part of his body we'd probably lock him away - but because is Abraham sufficiently old we think it's all completely reasonable and respectable.
Banquo's Ghost
05-11-2009, 07:19
Only type III/IV. Type I and II do not close up the vagina and are pretty comparable to male circumcision.
That's nonsense. Type I removes the clitoris and usually the prepuce. Only the latter could be remotely compared to male circumcision. The former is akin to having the entire glans removed, which I doubt would have much support.
Female circumcision is an abomination and should not be equated with the male version in any way. And that's not even taking into account the societal control of women that the practice represents.
Male circumcision just takes of the foreskin right, wouldn't call it mutilation. Heard it's also more hygienic. Women circumcision is disgusting.
Ja'chyra
05-11-2009, 08:06
Shouldn't be allowed until the child is old enough to make his/her own decision.
As for hygiene issues, try washing.
Incongruous
05-11-2009, 08:12
IA, I thought you were a true Tory, what about parents' rights?
Circumcision is not akin to any type of baby bashing nor is it really mutilation, it also can have many benefits, therefore why the heck should society in its great wisdom dictate to the parents on this matter?
Apologies to all whom may disagree.
As for hygiene issues, try washing.
Now they tell me
Ja'chyra
05-11-2009, 08:17
[QUOTE=Default the Magyar;2234027] nor is it really mutilation[QUOTE]
Yes it is.
mu⋅ti⋅late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
FactionHeir
05-11-2009, 09:01
That's nonsense. Type I removes the clitoris and usually the prepuce. Only the latter could be remotely compared to male circumcision. The former is akin to having the entire glans removed, which I doubt would have much support.
I'm not an advocate for either male or female circumcision, but its certainly equatable for the reason that you can't excise the male glans without hampering reproduction while you can excise the female one and still reproduce happily. Really, the female glans and the male foreskin can be equated as having a lot of nerve endings and being there for excitement.
The reasons behind circumcision seem to be mostly religious and hygienic, and supposedly aimed at reducing STDs and masturbation, of which really only the former is bad. Nevertheless, I don't see why we happily cut males but abhor the cutting of females.
My position is essentially identical to Xiahou's. Is it a must? No. Are there plenty of reasons for it? Sure. Any potential male children of mine will be circumcised.
Nevertheless, I don't see why we happily cut males but abhor the cutting of females.
Motivation is different, female circumcision is to deprive her of sexual pleassure, it's dehumanising.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 10:10
IA, I thought you were a true Tory, what about parents' rights?
Circumcision is not akin to any type of baby bashing nor is it really mutilation, it also can have many benefits, therefore why the heck should society in its great wisdom dictate to the parents on this matter?
Apologies to all whom may disagree.
What's wrong with postponing the decision until the child is old enough to make their own decision? If circumcision is beneficial, then it'll be just as beneficial when the newly adult individual decides to be circumcised. And if the individual decides after all not to be circumcised, what right did the parents have to decide to circumcise him? Why make the irrevocable decision when the individual at the heart of it doesn't have an opinion to voice, when there is no urgent need to make the decision?
InsaneApache
05-11-2009, 11:19
IA, I thought you were a true Tory, what about parents' rights?
Circumcision is not akin to any type of baby bashing nor is it really mutilation, it also can have many benefits, therefore why the heck should society in its great wisdom dictate to the parents on this matter?
Apologies to all whom may disagree.
I'm a libertarian. As such my stance should be obvious. Personal choice. Summat you aint got as a baby.
As someone that did his circumcision when he was 20 because of medical reason, I say, let the child decide.
It's his penis so it's his right, not anyone else to decide what he wants to do with it.
One word: chaffing. It should definitely be banned. To hell with tradition. If someone today declared that he was forming a union with God by cutting off part of his body we'd probably lock him away - but because is Abraham sufficiently old we think it's all completely reasonable and respectable.
Chaffing? What kind of underwear are you using?
FactionHeir
05-11-2009, 12:40
Motivation is different, female circumcision is to deprive her of sexual pleassure, it's dehumanising.
Various sides give various reasons as to why circumcision is done in various cultures and groups. There are believers and activists on either extreme. It is of course difficult to discern the actual reasoning behind any circumcision and I imagine every circumcision is going to be very personal and individual.
Taking your point of depriving someone of sexual pleasure though, it certainly does the same for the male without foreskin, though modern stigma has it that males should 'last longer' so circumcision maybe helps there. You know, please the female longer and all. Originally though, I do think that circumcision for either gender was to prevent disease and decrease the amount of masturbation. Done in a correct fashion, both male and female circumcision are likely to attain these.
Kralizec
05-11-2009, 13:07
Since little boys don't get a say in the matter I'm against it. On the other hand I know few guys who were circumcised when they were kids but all of them say it barely bothers them or not at all. Considering that there are many other decisions parents make for their kids with much more influence on their later lives I don't think it's a big issue.
Female circumcision is an abomination though.
Taking your point of depriving someone of sexual pleasure though, it certainly does the same for the male without foreskin, though modern stigma has it that males should 'last longer' so circumcision maybe helps there.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I humbly disagree with that one.
Louis VI the Fat
05-11-2009, 14:21
The more moving parts, the more playful fun can be had. :2thumbsup:
Circumcision is child mutiliation. It's amputation of perfectly healthy body parts. Medical advantages are very tenous.
Did you know that cutting off a baby's ear lobes will decrease the change of him getting an infection on them by 100%?
FactionHeir
05-11-2009, 14:37
Speaking as a circumcised male, I humbly disagree with that one.
I'm sure we can find a circumcised female who would be able to say the same, and a male who would disagree. People's experiences will differ I imagine, which is why we should let the patient choose, and not the parents :yes:
I'm sure we can find a circumcised female who would be able to say the same, and a male who would disagree. People's experiences will differ I imagine, which is why we should let the patient choose, and not the parents :yes:
From my perspective, circumcision is a purely cosmetic procedure. Since we allow parents the ability to choose other cosmetic procedures on their children (such as reduction of an "outie" bellybutton or ear piercings), I see no reason that a parent cannot also choose to have their child circumcised.
All of the arguments I've heard against circumcision are that it isn't just cosmetic, that it results in a functional change as well. Again, since I have personal experience in this matter, it's difficult for me to accept that it results in a functional change unless the procedure is done improperly. Top it off with every woman I've ever known saying they prefer a circumcised man both aesthetically and physically, and I've essentially been stacked with a personal bias that won't change. It seems strange to me that pretty much everyone who complains about male circumcision hasn't had it done on them. I'd like to some kind of poll on the ratio of circumcised men who wished they had a foreskin in comparison to the number of uncircumcised men who want to be snipped.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 16:46
From my perspective, circumcision is a purely cosmetic procedure. Since we allow parents the ability to choose other cosmetic procedures on their children (such as reduction of an "outie" bellybutton or ear piercings), I see no reason that a parent cannot also choose to have their child circumcised.
All of the arguments I've heard against circumcision are that it isn't just cosmetic, that it results in a functional change as well. Again, since I have personal experience in this matter, it's difficult for me to accept that it results in a functional change unless the procedure is done improperly. Top it off with every woman I've ever known saying they prefer a circumcised man both aesthetically and physically, and I've essentially been stacked with a personal bias that won't change. It seems strange to me that pretty much everyone who complains about male circumcision hasn't had it done on them. I'd like to some kind of poll on the ratio of circumcised men who wished they had a foreskin in comparison to the number of uncircumcised men who want to be snipped.
What's wrong with waiting until they're an adult before deciding whether to snip or not? This isn't an absolute ban on circumcision, merely waiting until they're an adult and can responsibly make decisions before deciding whether to circumcise or not. Why not let them decide for themselves?
InsaneApache
05-11-2009, 16:47
Yes but if you were circumcised at birth, how would you know?
What's wrong with waiting until they're an adult before deciding whether to snip or not? This isn't an absolute ban on circumcision, merely waiting until they're an adult and can responsibly make decisions before deciding whether to circumcise or not. Why not let them decide for themselves?
Doing it at birth has no psychological impact on a person. The idea of chopping off a bit of your johnson is frankly rather terrifying and I can understand why people would shy away from it. However, when it is done when you are an infant, you have absolutely no memory of it at all and thus there is no psychological impact. As far as I am concerned, my circumcision was painless simply because I can't even remember it. I'm sure there was pain, but without any memory of that pain it has had no impact of any kind on my life.
For this reason, any son I have will be circumcised shortly after birth. It is not religious for me, because I am an atheist. Since I know that I personally have never been damaged by it in any way, I have no fear that I would do something that would injure my child.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 18:14
Doing it at birth has no psychological impact on a person. The idea of chopping off a bit of your johnson is frankly rather terrifying and I can understand why people would shy away from it. However, when it is done when you are an infant, you have absolutely no memory of it at all and thus there is no psychological impact. As far as I am concerned, my circumcision was painless simply because I can't even remember it. I'm sure there was pain, but without any memory of that pain it has had no impact of any kind on my life.
For this reason, any son I have will be circumcised shortly after birth. It is not religious for me, because I am an atheist. Since I know that I personally have never been damaged by it in any way, I have no fear that I would do something that would injure my child.
The question still remains though, why not wait until the person is an adult and can make their own decisions, before letting them make this decision? It doesn't harm the person if they wait until they're 18 before they have the operation, and the benefits, if they exist, will still be there. Why the urgency to make the decision on their behalf?
Sasaki Kojiro
05-11-2009, 18:19
The question still remains though, why not wait until the person is an adult and can make their own decisions, before letting them make this decision? It doesn't harm the person if they wait until they're 18 before they have the operation, and the benefits, if they exist, will still be there. Why the urgency to make the decision on their behalf?
This is like asking "why give your child a vaccination or dietary advice, why not wait until they turn 18"? You can get measles before you become an adult, become overweight before you become an adult, and get one of the infections circumcision helps prevent before you become an adult.
Besides, TinCow just answered the question of why it's better to do it as a baby ~:confused:
My position is essentially identical to Xiahou's. Is it a must? No. Are there plenty of reasons for it? Sure. Any potential male children of mine will be circumcised.
You would say that, wouldn't you. ~D
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 18:38
This is like asking "why give your child a vaccination or dietary advice, why not wait until they turn 18"? You can get measles before you become an adult, become overweight before you become an adult, and get one of the infections circumcision helps prevent before you become an adult.
Besides, TinCow just answered the question of why it's better to do it as a baby ~:confused:
Vaccinated illnesses are rather more deadly than foreskin-related illnesses, are rather more common if not vaccinated against, and are often infectious if a sufficiently large number of unvaccinated individuals are present in a group. How common among minors are the infections that circumcision prevents?
Sasaki Kojiro
05-11-2009, 18:47
Vaccinated illnesses are rather more deadly than foreskin-related illnesses, are rather more common if not vaccinated against, and are often infectious if a sufficiently large number of unvaccinated individuals are present in a group. How common among minors are the infections that circumcision prevents?
Measles is deadly? Anyway, I can't quote any numbers to you, but what are you saying? Shouldn't parents take steps to protect the health of their children? Surely it's a case of "why not" rather than "why"? ~:confused:
If it wasn't clear, my support for circumcision has nothing to do with health in any way. I support circumcision exclusively due to sexual appeal and performance.
If it wasn't clear, my support for circumcision has nothing to do with health in any way. I support circumcision exclusively due to sexual appeal and performance.
I'll defend my foreskin vigorously :knight: It's mine and you won't touch it!
Unless you're actually an attractive woman, aged between 20 and 30, pretending to be a man on these forums.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 19:05
Measles is deadly? Anyway, I can't quote any numbers to you, but what are you saying? Shouldn't parents take steps to protect the health of their children? Surely it's a case of "why not" rather than "why"? ~:confused:
Measles is highly contagious, and in less developed countries, is a serious risk - killing a million each year, according to this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/measles2.shtml).
WHO on measles (http://www.who.int/topics/measles/en/)
Measles is a highly contagious viral disease, which affects mostly children. It is transmitted via droplets from the nose, mouth or throat of infected persons. Initial symptoms, which usually appear 8–12 days after infection, include high fever, runny nose, bloodshot eyes, and tiny white spots on the inside of the mouth. Several days later, a rash develops, starting on the face and upper neck and gradually spreading downwards.
There is no specific treatment for measles and most people recover within 2–3 weeks. However, particularly in malnourished children and people with reduced immunity, measles can cause serious complications, including blindness, encephalitis, severe diarrhoea, ear infection and pneumonia. Measles can be prevented by immunization.
If it wasn't clear, my support for circumcision has nothing to do with health in any way. I support circumcision exclusively due to sexual appeal and performance.
So why not let the child grow up before deciding for themselves whether they want this or not? Sexual appeal and performance is hardly likely to be an important factor for a newborn.
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 19:09
One word: chaffing. It should definitely be banned. To hell with tradition. If someone today declared that he was forming a union with God by cutting off part of his body we'd probably lock him away - but because is Abraham sufficiently old we think it's all completely reasonable and respectable.
direct violation of the constitution. banning it would infringe on freedom of religion.
So why not let the child grow up before deciding for themselves whether they want this or not? Sexual appeal and performance is hardly likely to be an important factor for a newborn.
Because it is likely to be an important factor for an adult and, as I stated before, I believe it is an extraordinarily simple procedure without physical or psychological consequences when it is conducted on an infant. I do not believe is quite as simple on an adult.
Che Roriniho
05-11-2009, 19:40
Look, let's get this straight, shall we? You're CUTTING thend of a BABY's PENIS off. Seriously, what was going through the minds of the first people to do that?
Oh, and it may be more pleasing to the woman, but there are more nerve endings in the foreskin than thee are under it, so that's a problem right there. As for infections, I assume you've all heard of cleaning.
I even heard that regular masterbation clers out the foreskin (don't ask me for the source, as I haven't a clue.)
Seamus Fermanagh
05-11-2009, 19:52
I'll defend my foreskin vigorously :knight: It's mine and you won't touch it!
I foresee no difficulties in aceding to your request.
Pannonian
05-11-2009, 20:07
Because it is likely to be an important factor for an adult and, as I stated before, I believe it is an extraordinarily simple procedure without physical or psychological consequences when it is conducted on an infant. I do not believe is quite as simple on an adult.
It still seems more like getting it done while they can't complain, because you can't be sure they'll make the "right" decision if given the choice.
On Sasaki's comparison with vaccination: my last mandatory vaccination I had was for tuberculosis, and I was still technically a minor when I was vaccinated. However, I was quite aware of what was going on by that time, and could give you a reasonably detailed history of vaccination, the reasons for it, the history behind it, the likely consequences of the TB jab, etc. I had expected a mild fever, from the milder version of the illness which I knew vaccinations to be, but all I had was a scab, in common with all the other kids.
It still seems more like getting it done while they can't complain, because you can't be sure they'll make the "right" decision if given the choice.
It has nothing to do with complaining, it has to do with sparing them pain and potential psychiatric complications later in life. Like I said, knives near the Rod of Lordly Might are scary. If I wasn't already circumcised, I doubt I would go under the knife for one for that reason alone. Yet, I am also very glad I am circumcised. I like it a great deal, as does my wife. Thus, I am pleased that my parents had me circumcised as an infant because it allowed me to enjoy the benefits of being circumcised without (as far as I am concerned) any negative impact of any kind.
As for making sure they've made the "right" decision, I've known many circumcised men and I've never heard any of them say they wish they still had a foreskin. So, from my perspective, the risk of the child regretting it later in life is pretty low. Combine this with the ease with which it is done at a young age and I see the benefits of early snipage as outweighing the risks of the unlikely scenario that the child someday wants his meatsock back.
Note that circumcision, when performed on a newborn, is normally done without anesthetic. I think that if you're very keen to have your child circumcised, you should at least wait until he is old enough to receive a painkiller. Yes, babies don't remember things, but their early development has a lot to do with how warm and safe they feel. Subjecting a newborn infant to unnecessary stress strikes me as thoughtless and unwise.
My boy lemur is uncut. You can always take away; you can never give back. If he decides that he wants to be circumcised later, that's a conversation we can have.
Megas Methuselah
05-11-2009, 20:53
I'm beggining to suspect my mom had me circumcised when I was a baby. She has yet to tell me.
:dizzy2:
I'm beggining to suspect my mom had me circumcised when I was a baby. She has yet to tell me.
:dizzy2:
If it looks like Darth Vader, she had you snipped. If it looks like a snake in a turtleneck, she left you intact.
Megas Methuselah
05-11-2009, 21:02
Yeah, I know. Which is why I'm suspicious...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-11-2009, 21:03
I'm beggining to suspect my mom had me circumcised when I was a baby. She has yet to tell me.
:dizzy2:
:inquisitive:
I should think you'd have noticed by now.
Yeah, I know. Which is why I'm suspicious...
I know I shouldn't, but I've just got to ask. Are you saying you don't know whether you're circumcised or not?
Megas Methuselah
05-11-2009, 21:17
Actually, I'm quite sure I'm circumcised.
The strange thing is why my mom never told me before.
I don't recall my parents ever discussing my cut state with me. Not really dinner conversation.
I wonder how lars' project is coming along...
Note that circumcision, when performed on a newborn, is normally done without anesthetic. I think that if you're very keen to have your child circumcised, you should at least wait until he is old enough to receive a painkiller. Yes, babies don't remember things, but their early development has a lot to do with how warm and safe they feel. Subjecting a newborn infant to unnecessary stress strikes me as thoughtless and unwise.
I think that the stress of being born is pretty hard to top. Nonetheless, lidocaine is commonly administered to infants as a local anesthetic for circumcision.
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 22:47
it is supposedly much less painful for an infant than it is for an adult.
in Judasim, immediatly after the cut has been made, we give the infant a bit of wine to soothe the pain. i remember 2 years ago when my little brother was cut 8 days after he was born, he only cried a bit, had the wine, then he was all good. i doubt he remembers it, like i dont remember mine.
it is supposedly much less painful for an infant than it is for an adult.
Hmmm. Just hmmmm.
Hooahguy
05-11-2009, 23:56
well considering an 8-day old seems to not feel it for long. and babies feel EVERYTHING.
Samurai Waki
05-11-2009, 23:58
I just kind of figured out my state of disfigurement when I had to shower after PE. Before that I didn't have a clue anything was different... or awesome. :laugh4:
Strike For The South
05-12-2009, 00:44
I'm thankful the did it to me. Or else the nickname "big red machine" wouldn't make any sense. Other than being ironic.
Kadagar_AV
05-12-2009, 00:49
I've never been a fan of mutilation.
It should be a decision taken when one is mature, ie, 18 years old. Parents mutilating their childs should be imprisoned.
Maybe it's just me: but a parent who can honestly answer the question "Do you want a very sharp object anywhere near your sons penis?" with a yes - shouldn't have kids.
Hooahguy
05-12-2009, 00:59
It should be a decision taken when one is mature, ie, 18 years old. Parents mutilating their childs should be imprisoned.
have fun not masturbating/having sex for a while when there are stitches all over your penis! :smash:
Strike For The South
05-12-2009, 01:00
What's sex hooah?
Hooahguy
05-12-2009, 01:02
do you need a lesson?
Maybe it's just me: but a parent who can honestly answer the question "Do you want a very sharp object anywhere near your sons penis?" with a yes - shouldn't have kids.
It's just you. The rest of us are in favor of multiple elective surgeries within minutes of birth. Since babies don't remember pain, per hooah, and since they're already traumatized by birth, per Xiahou, I think they should all be given appendectomies the minute they clear the vaginal canal. Might as well give the girls their false breasts while they're still too young to remember any different. And yank the tonsils while we're at it.
You know what causes a lot of medical problems? Kidneys. Yank them as well.
Pannonian
05-12-2009, 01:13
I'm wondering about the benefits of castration in classical and medieval times, especially in societies where upper classes kept harems. If one has several sons, one only needs one or two of them to continue the line, while the younger ones can be castrated. As eunuchs, they have greater career opportunities, partly due to the very fact that they cannot breed and thus are assumed to lack the ambition to provide a legacy for their children. Some of them might even follow careers in music as castrati. And if they're castrated young enough, they won't remember anything of their operation.
So, if one has three or more sons, should one castrate the younger ones for their own good, before they're old enough to remember it?
Strike For The South
05-12-2009, 01:15
do you need a lesson?
Only if you teach me :filrt:
Hooahguy
05-12-2009, 01:23
behind the barn at 7. :clown:
Sasaki Kojiro
05-12-2009, 01:23
It's just you. The rest of us are in favor of multiple elective surgeries within minutes of birth. Since babies don't remember pain, per hooah, and since they're already traumatized by birth, per Xiahou, I think they should all be given appendectomies the minute they clear the vaginal canal. Might as well give the girls their false breasts while they're still too young to remember any different. And yank the tonsils while we're at it.
You know what causes a lot of medical problems? Kidneys. Yank them as well.
So you not in favor of preventative medical procedures on kids? Well let me tell you how many lives have been saved by vaccination. The total estimated casualties would be about 9 million.
Nine. Million.
They all lie dead because you're against vaccination. The blood of those Nine million is on your hands.
Nine. Million.
Nine Million Bodies. Each one had a life, friends, lovers, and family. Each one made some contribution to the world around them, which was cut short by people thinking that vaccination is bad. Am I the only one here who sees how utterly irrational that idea is.
Nine. Million.
Hooahguy
05-12-2009, 01:24
So you not in favor of preventative medical procedures on kids? Well let me tell you how many lives have been saved by vaccination. The total estimated casualties would be about 9 million.
Nine. Million.
They all lie dead because you're against vaccination. The blood of those Nine million is on your hands.
Nine. Million.
Nine Million Bodies. Each one had a life, friends, lovers, and family. Each one made some contribution to the world around them, which was cut short by people thinking that vaccination is bad. Am I the only one here who sees how utterly irrational that idea is.
Nine. Million.
that came in soooo perfectly! :laugh4:
Strike For The South
05-12-2009, 01:30
So you not in favor of preventative medical procedures on kids? Well let me tell you how many lives have been saved by vaccination. The total estimated casualties would be about 9 million.
Nine. Million.
They all lie dead because you're against vaccination. The blood of those Nine million is on your hands.
Nine. Million.
Nine Million Bodies. Each one had a life, friends, lovers, and family. Each one made some contribution to the world around them, which was cut short by people thinking that vaccination is bad. Am I the only one here who sees how utterly irrational that idea is.
Nine. Million.
In all my time at the Org this has to be the best executed post of all time. Have my babies and treat me bad.
Pannonian
05-12-2009, 01:44
I've been thinking about the castration idea, not just in historical terms, but in terms of modern day society. Harems are less common nowadays than back then, so that line of work isn't as regular now as it was back then. However, there's the army, which has been a common avenue for younger sons throughout history (Arthur Wellesley, Winston Churchill, etc.). One of the problems western armies have faced in recent times has been incidents where some soldiers have gone out of control, and thus undone the conciliatory and reconstruction work of others. Eunuchs won't be quite as intense on testosterone as the average man, while their state wouldn't adversely affect their ability to make calculated decisions, so wouldn't eunuch soldiers be a good option for any western army that sees itself in peacekeeping missions? Unfortunately, western society doesn't tend to produce large families, and one can't expect them to end their line by castrating their only sons. However, less developed countries are still producing large families.
So my idea is: we send missions to these lesser developed countries that are still producing large families. We keep tabs on each family, and whenever any family produces a second or third son, we offer to take over the upbringing of that child, castrate them while they're still young, and bring them up as future eunuch soldiers. It would be good for us, as we can properly train them from childhood to be elite soldiers, and once they're in use, they won't be as prey to the uber-macho mistakes that our current soldiers sometimes make. It would be good for the children, as we'd be giving them a better standard of life than they'd otherwise have got, in all likelihood. It would be good for their families, as they won't have to raise another child, and can thus concentrate their resources on fewer children. Who knows, perhaps we can revive the musical tradition of castrati as well.
Any thoughts?
Kadagar_AV
05-12-2009, 01:54
I'd say there is quite a difference between vaccination and starting to cut someones penis to shreds though.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-12-2009, 02:05
Any thoughts?
Ah, foreign slave soldiers. That has worked exceptionally well in the past, I presume. ~;)
Pannonian
05-12-2009, 02:17
Ah, foreign slave soldiers. That has worked exceptionally well in the past, I presume. ~;)
Eunuch soldiers would at least be chemically better suited to what our foreign policy demands of our armies though, lacking the need to prove their machismo while equally able to use their training. And since they've been brought up from childhood for this, they'd have undergone more training, and more highly focused training, than the average soldier. Heck, if it becomes enough of a success, perhaps even native families could neuter their younger sons to prepare them for a career in the army.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-12-2009, 03:55
Eunuch soldiers would at least be chemically better suited to what our foreign policy demands of our armies though, lacking the need to prove their machismo while equally able to use their training. And since they've been brought up from childhood for this, they'd have undergone more training, and more highly focused training, than the average soldier. Heck, if it becomes enough of a success, perhaps even native families could neuter their younger sons to prepare them for a career in the army.
Unfortunately, skeletal/muscular development is altered in ways that would reduce their value as soldiers -- eunuchs tend to be large but brittle, and often prone to weight gain. Not that these properties could not be countered, but.....
So you not in favor of preventative medical procedures on kids? Well let me tell you how many lives have been saved by vaccination. The total estimated casualties would be about 9 million.
Nine. Million.
They all lie dead because you're against vaccination. The blood of those Nine million is on your hands.
Nine. Million.
Nine Million Bodies. Each one had a life, friends, lovers, and family. Each one made some contribution to the world around them, which was cut short by people thinking that vaccination is bad. Am I the only one here who sees how utterly irrational that idea is.
Nine. Million.
This is a brilliant post. I wish I had argued against vaccination, just so that it would make sense. However, your demonstrated post genius is wasted on a straw man, so your rhetorical flourish is slashing pure air.
Fail. Try again. And just in case your epic fail is not clear, please feel free to point out where, in my entire time at the Org, I have argued against vaccination.
I have two children, both fully vaccinated. You seem to be saying that I have not. You argue that I have the blood of millions on my hands. I sincerely hope you have been drinking, 'cause I don't see anything else that could excuse you for being both extremely rude and extremely wrong in the same breath.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-12-2009, 04:03
Fail. Try again.
3 words, summarizing a good attitude toward coping with life's difficulties.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-12-2009, 04:22
This is a brilliant post. I wish I had argued against vaccination, just so that it would make sense. However, your demonstrated post genius is wasted on a straw man, so your rhetorical flourish is slashing pure air.
Fail. Try again. And just in case your epic fail is not clear, please feel free to point out where, in my entire time at the Org, I have argued against vaccination.
Right here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2233727&postcount=61)
Right here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2233727&postcount=61)
SK, are you drunk? No, seriously, are you inebriated? You link to a post by Che Roriniho, quoting Hooahguy and Wakizashi discussing religion? This is your backup for accusing me of being an infanticidal maniac?
Walk away from the keyboard and sober up. We can talk about this when you are capable of making sense.
Kadagar_AV
05-12-2009, 05:18
Right here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2233727&postcount=61)
Ok, so that would have been a cool move if it in any way would have been tied to the topic at hand.
Or even if it remotely was in answer to a point made in this thread.
However, to bring FAR other threads into this topic seems idiotic at best. Don't get me started on the worst-case-scenario.
Incongruous
05-12-2009, 06:54
I'm gonna fall back onto freedom of religion, you can't ban it because then you would infringe upon the right to freedom of worship and stuff, and you cannot simply let people with religious issues choose to have it done, that would descriminatorious.
But also, I still think this is just petty social moralising, the tyranny of the moral many upon the the rest can have its ups, but attacking something like male snippy snippy, is just a downer.
Samurai Waki
05-12-2009, 07:11
I honestly in no way feel gimped by it. And I think this where this thread is devolving, actually I don't think any male with a circumcision feels gimped by it. The fact of the matter is, is that we just don't know what its like to have that extra little bit of skin, and neither do the people who haven't gotten the procedure unless they did it later in life.
I don't agree with it, because I believe it should be up to the individual to decide. However, its not like its this big terrible evil thing that we suffer day and night from. I don't even give it a second thought. :shrug:
Pannonian
05-12-2009, 08:14
I'm gonna fall back onto freedom of religion, you can't ban it because then you would infringe upon the right to freedom of worship and stuff, and you cannot simply let people with religious issues choose to have it done, that would descriminatorious.
But also, I still think this is just petty social moralising, the tyranny of the moral many upon the the rest can have its ups, but attacking something like male snippy snippy, is just a downer.
But no-one's arguing to stop people with religious beliefs from having it done. What people are arguing is that people with religious beliefs shouldn't have it done to their children. Wait till these children are grown up and can make their own decisions, then let them decide whether or not they should have it done. How does this infringe on freedom of religion?
have fun not masturbating/having sex for a while when there are stitches all over your penis! :smash:
It's part of the ritual of becoming a man.
4 weeks without doing anything naughty.
Of course it helps that the first 2 weeks you are unable to even think about it.
Also it gives you something to compare it with.
Louis VI the Fat
05-12-2009, 10:56
castrate them while they're still young, and bring them up as future eunuch soldiers.
Any thoughts?Excellent idea!
These babies won't have any memories of it at all. And it pleases others aesthetically. Most importantly, castration is a useful medical procedure - it reduces the risk of STD by 100%.
Louis VI the Fat
05-12-2009, 11:00
In many parts of Africa and elsewhere, scarification and mutilation are marks of beauty and a way to identify someone belonging to a particular group. Scarification also may mark one’s status as a civilized being, an adult, or a member of a specific ethnic group or initiation association.
From Africa to the Middle East - where male circumcision originated - male genital mutilation performs this function. This is what circumcision is about. Medical arguments are tenous. Very, very close to non-existent for peoples with access to water and soap.
Male and female circumcision are a tribal, aesthetic, religious practise. Apart from serving these tribal purposes, owing to a bizarre alliance with the prudish movement, male genital mutilation entered the US a century ago, become widespread after WWII. Fortunately, this barbaric practise seems to be past its heyday from the 1970's.
Who here would scar his son in the manner below?
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/18/benina.jpg (https://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=benina.jpg)
https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9818/scarback.jpg (https://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scarback.jpg)
InsaneApache
05-12-2009, 11:40
But no-one's arguing to stop people with religious beliefs from having it done. What people are arguing is that people with religious beliefs shouldn't have it done to their children. Wait till these children are grown up and can make their own decisions, then let them decide whether or not they should have it done. How does this infringe on freedom of religion?
My thoughts exactly. It interersting to note how this seems to have become a cultural thing. 'My daddy had it done and if it was good enough for him, it's good enough for my son', thingy. I've still not seen a plausible reason by advocates to consider changing my mind on the issue.
Let me throw a thought into the mix.
Little fingers and toes are next to useless, especially the toes. Someone comes up with the notion that if you amputate the little toe you run about 10% faster. No proof, just conjecture. Would it be moral to have your kids toes chopped off?
Oh and I seem to have inadvertantely started a fight between mods. :laugh4: Game on! :skull:
LittleGrizzly
05-12-2009, 11:58
scarification and mutilation are marks of beauty
Africa here i come!
The kid looks mean, it kind of has a cool look about it in a way but i couldn't support doing that to children...
The guy at the bottom looks well cool though... they are scars ?
I have TBH this whole topic has had me crining constantly... especially when the word snip or cut is placed anywhere near the word penis or foreskin!
Personally im not sure about the issue... where does the line where what you can do to your kids stop ?
In terms of actual health issues unless you expect to be living without access to cleaning failities there really is no difference... so i don't see a plus there...
On the sexual performance thing... is this just because theres less sensitivity so you last longer... or is there just something that makes it more pleasurable to women ?
If its the former then isn't there a risk from the decreased sensitivity of being less ready to do the job as you can't get enough stimulation... i did end up getting bored or tired a few times i even faked it once or twice which i found kind of ironic...
I wouldn't ban it i don't think... actively discourage maybe...
KukriKhan
05-12-2009, 13:00
Chaffing? What kind of underwear are you using?
What is this un der wear, of which you speak?
On the sexual performance thing... is this just because theres less sensitivity so you last longer... or is there just something that makes it more pleasurable to women ?
If its the former then isn't there a risk from the decreased sensitivity of being less ready to do the job as you can't get enough stimulation... i did end up getting bored or tired a few times i even faked it once or twice which i found kind of ironic...
For obvious reasons, I cannot comment on decreased sensitivity, better to ask someone who had it done later in life about that one. All I can say is that if my sensitivity is decreased, I would probably have difficulty just wearing pants, let alone performing in the sack. In any case, that's not what I was referring to. What I have been told by the women I have been with is that the increased prominence of the 'ridge' results in more stimulation of the underside of the clitoris and (from certain positions) the G-spot. To my understanding it is not a major difference, but given a choice between snipped and unsnipped, my various girlfriends have always expressed a preference for the former. There also seems to be an aesthetics issue for many women regarding the foreskin which I think is born from the false notion that it is unclean.
Far as circumcision is concerned, all I got to say is that even the thought of other adult people having it done makes me twitch and feel kind of sick......to get it done on babies in my book is inhuman. I mean it's not like they're going to die within a week if it's not done.....let them grow up and decide.......and faith is, well one's own faith.....circumcising babies is like forcing a faith on them, and that is incorrect.
Most importantly, castration is a useful medical procedure - it reduces the risk of STD by 100%.
Can I use this in the backroom sig?
Banquo's Ghost
05-12-2009, 13:40
For obvious reasons, I cannot comment on decreased sensitivity, better to ask someone who had it done later in life about that one. All I can say is that if my sensitivity is decreased, I would probably have difficulty just wearing pants, let alone performing in the sack. In any case, that's not what I was referring to. What I have been told by the women I have been with is that the increased prominence of the 'ridge' results in more stimulation of the underside of the clitoris and (from certain positions) the G-spot. To my understanding it is not a major difference, but given a choice between snipped and unsnipped, my various girlfriends have always expressed a preference for the former. There also seems to be an aesthetics issue for many women regarding the foreskin which I think is born from the false notion that it is unclean.
One suspects it may also be a cultural preference, given the much higher percentage of circumcised males in the Untied States. It becomes an expectation, and therefore through familiarity, a preference.
HoreTore
05-12-2009, 21:01
I won't ever support measures to prevent male masturbation.
So it's a "no" from me.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-12-2009, 23:07
I wouldn't have that done to my children, but I suppose other parents have the right to do it, even if I disagree.
Askthepizzaguy
05-13-2009, 05:45
How many botched circumcisions have resulted in the loss of sexual feeling, disfigurement, or infection and the loss of the penis itself? Compare that to the number of people who have died from foreskin related hygiene issues, beyond STDs which by the way get transmitted regardless of a foreskin or not.
Bottom line is: The outer ear could possibly get dirty or covered in wax. Better cut it off to make sure, we wouldn't want to learn proper hygenic washing methods. everyone knows us people who are uncircumcised are just dirty filthy boys, totally unnatural with their bodies intact and the way nature intended.
I will defer to the latest medical data on the issue, but speaking as one of the billions of people on the planet who didn't have it done to them, I'm just fine, and I can wash myself.
Kadagar_AV
05-13-2009, 06:29
I don't understand this hygiene issue...
the foreskin keeps the fun part of the dick from rubbing against underwear all day long.
Given everyone clean it now and then, a dick that has been shelltered by skin should be more clean than a dick that has rubbed against underwear?
Specially since the underwear of people without foreskin would be less clean as you have nothing to hold that last drop of piss between when you finished pissing and wash the dick.
hygiene really is a FACTOR if you go a couple of weeks without cleaning it... And I sincerely hope no one here does.
Strike For The South
05-14-2009, 02:34
These circumcision threads always bing out the worst in us. It's a peice of skin. Get over yourselves.
Louis VI the Fat
05-14-2009, 10:30
These circumcision threads always bing out the worst in us. Relax, don't let these threads get under your skin, Strikey.
Pannonian
05-14-2009, 14:27
These discussions always degenerate into arguments against skin, or for skin.
LittleGrizzly
05-14-2009, 14:38
Well in the arguments for skin, its soft, durable and good in a tight spot...
This was truley a silly discussion. The only real issue is with female circumcision (of the heavy type), and that hasn't been nearly covered here. This whole thing was a "no u" disscussion
HoreTore
05-14-2009, 15:38
This was truley a silly discussion. The only real issue is with female circumcision (of the heavy type), and that hasn't been nearly covered here. This whole thing was a "no u" disscussion
I'm pretty sure that if done in a sterile operating room with competent doctors, female circumcision could be done in a safe and similar fashion to male circumcision. Both methods have the same goal, reducing sexual urges, by removing the clitoris on females, and the foreskin on males. I'm pretty sure that if it was done in a safe and clean way, there would've been plenty of people with a dozen reason why removing the clitoris is the best thing to do.
If you think I'm losing my mind here, try reading about male circumcision in south africa. Then tell me how that's different from the female horror stories.
Both methods have the same goal, reducing sexual urges, by removing the clitoris on females, and the foreskin on males.
This is patently false. Male circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with "reducing sexual urges." Sexual urges in both men and women come from hormones, and hormone levels are not controlled by those bits of the body. Circumcised men are just as randy as uncircumcised men. In addition, while I am by no means a proponent of female circumcision, minimal female circumcision (as in partial removal of the flap of skin over the clitoris, not the clitoris itself) can actually increase a woman's ability to have an orgasm. Many women have a small clitoris which is hidden inside the skin fold, thus making it harder to experience stimulation during intercourse. In some cases, removing part of the skin fold can expose enough of the clitoris to increase sexual pleasure. This is the same reason why clitoris piercings can result in increased sexual pleasure.
HoreTore
05-15-2009, 20:28
Sexual urges in both men and women come from hormones, and hormone levels are not controlled by those bits of the body.
I never said it was a successful way, I didn't even say that it did anything to that effect. I said it was the intention.
(with a quite clear exception for the jews, they have it written clearly in their holy book. However, if you assume that god doesn't exist and that all religion is man-made, I'm pretty sure that was the reasoning for the priest who came up with the concept.)
Rhyfelwyr
05-15-2009, 20:47
It is a pretty strange thing to do. I wonder before the first person was circumcised, what made them think that it would be a good idea to do?
HoreTore
05-15-2009, 21:06
It is a pretty strange thing to do. I wonder before the first person was circumcised, what made them think that it would be a good idea to do?
Well, the foreskin provides lubricant for youknowhat. Without the foreskin, there's less lubricant, thus making our lives a little harder.
The clitoris makes sex enjoyable. Can't have any of that, that'll make them want sex, so off with it!
Quite logical, really.
I never said it was a successful way, I didn't even say that it did anything to that effect. I said it was the intention.
(with a quite clear exception for the jews, they have it written clearly in their holy book. However, if you assume that god doesn't exist and that all religion is man-made, I'm pretty sure that was the reasoning for the priest who came up with the concept.)
I understand what you're saying, but at least as far as the Jews go, I think it really was for sanitary reasons alone. The entire kosher diet is essentially a primitive health code, so it's consistent.
No arguments on the intention of female circumcision though. In almost all the places it is used, it is specifically done to keep women 'chaste.' Like I said, there are methods of doing it that actually increase pleasure for some women, but those methods are not the ones used in most societies that use female circumcision. I think I read somewhere that Indonesians(?) tend to practice some kind of very minimal female circumcision that does not touch the clitoris in any way, but they're the only society I have heard of that does that.
I'm pretty sure that if done in a sterile operating room with competent doctors, female circumcision could be done in a safe and similar fashion to male circumcision. Both methods have the same goal, reducing sexual urges, by removing the clitoris on females, and the foreskin on males. I'm pretty sure that if it was done in a safe and clean way, there would've been plenty of people with a dozen reason why removing the clitoris is the best thing to do.
If you think I'm losing my mind here, try reading about male circumcision in south africa. Then tell me how that's different from the female horror stories.
Your post effectively represents with what I basicly meant with "no u" posts.
I said something with less relevance, and you went all like "yeah whatever man I am not listening but what I have to say is important is that what you said is wrong because if done properly is completley okay".
But then again, I never said what is right and what is wrong. Just what the actual problem is with relevance to reality. And the problem is, that female circumcision is done terrible wrong in most african countries. Not more and not less.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.