Yes, I know I'm stirring the waters.... (tee hee hee)
But I find this article interesting nonetheless, and thought some folks here might find it interesting as well.
Enjoy! (But not too much...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us...us&oref=slogin
Yes, I know I'm stirring the waters.... (tee hee hee)
But I find this article interesting nonetheless, and thought some folks here might find it interesting as well.
Enjoy! (But not too much...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us...us&oref=slogin
Love of one's country is a beautiful thing. But why should love stop at the border?
- Pablo Casals
Yeah it's pointless and outdated genital mutilation done under the ruse of "religion" and the idea that a mutilated penis is somehow "cleaner" when it's not, and circumcision of men and women should be outlawed and it doesn't prevent people from getting HIV or other STDs.
I'm circumcized (since I was a baby) and it isn't a big deal. My parents didn't have the doctor do it because we are religious but because "it's cleaner". While that probably isn't true I really don't care, everything works fine down there either way, right? I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it mutilation thoughOriginally Posted by DiamondDog
.
“If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.”
-Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
Re: Article re: circumcision
Sometimes circumcision is required for medical reasons. It is sometimes the case that the foreskin atrophies (does not 'feed' from the blood supply) and begins to die off. This isknown as phimosis. In the cases that I am familiar with, the skin goes characteristically paper white and loses both its elasticity and size. The glans cannot be revealed and cleanliness is compromised at the very least. Tearing can result during penetration. It is quite possibe for the tissue to autotomise (be shed) naturally. It is unlikely to grow again without some extreme moves (there is a group that dedicates itself to re-establishing a foreskin through prolonged stretching - which must be uncomfortable). Rather than wait for the possibility of autotomy, medical intervention occurs with controlled circumcision.
Side effects - the glans eventually loses its previous sensitivity resulting initially in a 'long stayer' (not always welcomed by lovers) but can result in such insensitivity that loss of impetus results. I'd sooner have a foreskin than not but sometimes there is no choice.
That's the scientific bit out of the way. FLippant and completely unscientific if not bordering on the demented - try whipping the thing back to sensation or use chilli and scoprions - no don't!
Lets get off this We've all beat this dead horse to a pulp. please let it die off. There are other threads dealing with this. Lets all stop.
Rodney Kiong said it best, "Can't we all just be friends".
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with.
< gggggggggrrrrrrrrr> .........sittin over here trying hard to not let that hot button get pushed... < fades away muttering to himself about barbaric treatment of infant males>
"To each monkey, it's own swing.." - old Latino Provberb
Absolutely!
...and female circumcision helps women be faithful, and abandon the Freudian immature clitoral orgasm to seek the mature woman's deep penetration orgasm!
Better living through mutilation!
(sarcasm intended).
There is no excuse. None of the wives tales/pseudo science hold any water... in our culture that still embraces male mutilation... or far eastern that still embraces the virtues of female mutilation.
It took 3 generations of surgeons to wash their hands. It will take 5 generations of doctors before circumcision loses its pseudo science support.
Buck, sorry to reality blitz you, but you only have 1/2 the feeling you would otherwise have. It's simple mathematics.
Plus mutilation is the precise and exact term for destroying healthy tissue with absolutely no indication of disease.
Hephaestion may get athelete's foot... perhaps we should do him a favor and help him cut off his toes to prevent this terrible plague.
Last edited by Bluebiyou; Feb 4, 2008 at 11:16 PM.
I don't think that's fair. I don't think he was advocating pre-emptive circumcisions.
I like my foreskin and I am completely against frivolously circumcising infants.
Last edited by BiphobiaFighter; Feb 4, 2008 at 11:50 PM.
Please I really mean it let this god damn thread die.
We not just beat this horse to death, but the next 3 generations.
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with.
Don't forget that the length and width of the penis are made smaller and decreased by circumcision too!
The thing with circumcision is that the decision is in most cases not made thanks to consideration of any health consequences---it is made based on interpretations based on things like religion or cultural norms.
Once again-- the decision to have a child undergo being cut is one of cases in which it's a matter of "don't confuse me with the facts---my mind is made up and that's that!!!"
Being Catholic--I had kind of thought that "the Church" had favored circumcision --the Catholic church does not currently have a specific policy either way---allowing indivduals to make such a decision based on their family or local custom.
According to a pamplet I found on the subject--the church considers the procedure to be a form of mutilation and therefore is not something the church supports--
I don't know if this was the stance of the church back when I was born---but if that is they way the church taught then--I wished my folks had followed those teachings then!!!
Here is the gist of what the Catholic Church now holds on this subject:
"The Catholic Church Catechism clearly teaches that amputations and mutilations performed on innocent persons withhout strictly therapeutic reasons are strictly against the moral law.
Infant Circumcision is
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere..." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The thing with circumcision is that the decision is in most cases not made thanks to consideration of any health consequences---it is made based on interpretations based on things like religion, cultural or even family norms.
Once again-- the decision to have a child undergo being cut is one of cases in which it's a matter of "don't confuse me with the facts---my mind is made up and that's that!!!"
Being Catholic--I had kind of thought that "the Church" had favored circumcision --the Catholic church does not currently have a specific policy either way---allowing indivduals to make such a decision based on their family or local custom.
According to a pamplet I found on the subject--the church considers the procedure to be a form of mutilation and therefore is not something the church supports--
I don't know if this was the stance of the church back when I was born---but if that is they way the church taught then--I wished my folks had followed those teachings!!! LOL
Here is the gist of what the Catholic Church now holds on this subject:
"The Catholic Church Catechism clearly teaches that amputations and mutilations performed on innocent persons withhout strictly therapeutic reasons are strictly against the moral law.
Infant Circumcision is non-therapuetic amputation."
from the informational pamplet: "Catholic Teachings on Circumcision...Respecting the Bodily Integrity of All of God's Chidren"
But knowing that in many of the places the Catholic Church is big--there are very strong cultural and social arguments that support circumcision----they allow for wiggle room on this subject.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere..." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is interesting to read all the thoughts on this repetitive topic but I was wondering if anyone really read the article.
There is actually scientific evidence that circumcision REDUCES the incidence of STDs. So those of you claiming there is no "cleanliness" issue are wrong--maybe not in you but in some areas of Africa, men may not clean themselves as well and disease may result. Female circumcision on the other hand has no such accompanying data. Therefore, certainly female circumcision should be banned but male circumcision for the right reasons may still be justified.
Now, Flounder, I will do my best to let this die...
Bree
I was cut as a baby and I think I am horrible! This is a mutilation I had NO idea WHY my fucking father authorized this at the hospital as it was not a standard procedure.
It's horrible, is absurd, I do NOT see the logic of it at all. Is a practice that should forever be banned.
As long as there is a large Jewish influence in the World Health Organization, every effort to disguise and pseudo science justify it will continue.
If the world looks at circumcision as it truly is, the Jewish based custom will become illegal; orthodox leaning Jews see this result as bad.
The same would be true if the Koran had required the same of female circumcision and Arabs held the top tiers of world power. Female circumcision would (every 20 years something different) be proved to improve health and well being... by citing some statistic or study.
This traditional/cultural mutilation is nothing more.
Hands will be cleaner if we cut them off. Athlete's foot will virtually disappear if we cut off all of a baby's toes. Can you imagine the reduction of female mouth cancer if we circumcise women's mouths at birth? Can you imagine the reduction of feminine mental distess if we gave every female a lobotomy at birth? Any horrible mutilation could easily, quickly, and very mathematically/scientifically be rationalized/justified.
Hey, BreeIsMe... your face is dirty... here, use a razor to cut it off... no, wait! That's right, soap and water is the cure for dirty, not the razor... gosh, for a minute I was stupid.
"Only blind are those who will not see."
Last edited by Bluebiyou; Feb 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM.
I'm truly sorry for being so vicious.
There is simply no justification for molesting an innocent human.
I will go toe to toe with anyone who supports molestation (this includes female circumcision as well as male).
If a male cannot urinate, or his health is in grave danger, then yes; cut off his leg if he has gangrene; circumcise him if he cannot urinate (actually a single small longitudinal incision would allow urination without having to remove prepuce).
Preventive mutilation is NOT medicine.
P.S. any such violence I propose to/about females is %100 sarcastic in nature and meant to illustrate some evil.
The last comment by bluebiyou is not only bordering on anti-semitic...it is anti semitic! your claim that the medical establishment is performing circumcisions because of Jewish influence just shows how little you know. Jews don't give a rat's ass if people from other religions cut their kids or not! In fact, jews don't care much what other religions do, as long as they don't try persecuting us for our faith and our actions. If i weren't Jewish, i probably would not have circumcised my son. But i am, and have no shame, guilt or bad feeling about doing so. Do what you want to your kids!
For the rest of you who have called it mutilation, that have said it should be outlawed, and compared it to female circumcision where they cut off a woman's clitoris: I've bit my tongue thus far. As for the medical establishment, you have your right to be critical. But as far as the religious practice...think about what you say before you try stopping a tradition that is pretty harmless in and of itself...most of the time, the kid doesn't cry because of the cut...but because he is cold! For all the talk about mutilation...I think a circumcised prick is pretty beautiful..both flaccid and hard...and i'm sure many many many people would agree! As far as loss of sensitivity...who is to judge? I have been circumcised all my life and i still am overly sensitive and sometimes cum too easily. As far as being the equivalent of female circumcision...come on...the only thing they have in common is that they are both called circumcision. The equivalent would be cutting of the head of a cock, not the foreskin surrounding it.
Coyotedude..you should have left this one alone....it only brings out the subtle...and not so subtle forms of bigotry that still exists today.
Anti semitic? LOL Nice twist. Almost if I was arguing against child molestation as a means of being a bigot against Jews? That's a clever and original tactic.
Good lord, I don't even hate my enemies in life that much because it would take so much energy to hate.
I'll argue against any race, religion, nationality, gender, .. etc. that, as a group, endorse child molestation.
None of your other arguments hold any water as well; none. They're attempts at denying/rationalizing/minimizing the harming an innocent child.
It would be an impressive act of devotion and faith, if a man, as an adult with free will circumcised himself as a sacrifice to God.
To do this to an innocent and defensless child... I just can't see a 'sacrifice' or act of faith, or even morality.
At very best it is cultural conformity (whether that culture is religious, nationality, political, etc).
Naw, dude. I don't hate you... hell I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and half my friends were Jewish. I am just againt harming innocents. Please don't try to confuse this.
Last edited by Bluebiyou; Feb 8, 2008 at 4:33 AM.
Cut penises seriously are nasty!
All the nasty scars, dryness, removed parts, and fucked up penises and genitals.
I know one man who got his dick cut as a baby and the doctor fucked it up and his cock is all fucked up and bends weird and part of his cock head is missing!
Try having one of the most sensitive parts of your penis cut off without any anesthesia and tell me it DOES NOT hurt you at all.
You should feel bad for how your outdated and pointless religion says that a man's penis has to be mutilated just like your penis and that you MUST pass this onto your son. You should also feel horrible at how you let this get done to your son in the name of an outdated religion. If you actually did care about your son you wouldn't have had his penis mutilated just to match yours or because it's part of your religion.
There are Jews who abhor male circumcision and see it as genital mutilation which it is and they refuse to have it done to their sons, and everyone is still part of that outdated religion even if they're not cut. It's not a requirement for being a male Jew.
Ritual male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not harmless. It's a horrible practise that should never be done and should be outlawed. Also with some female circumcisions all they do is remove the hood of the clit and don't touch the clit at all, so you can compare male circumcision to female circumcision.
I don't care if someone gets cut as an adult since it is their own choice but I think it's a horrible thing if you do it to a helpless child or a baby who has NO CONSENT at all over what he does or does not want done to his body.
Don't accuse other people of being bigots since the finger you accuse with points directly back at you!
If you're Jewish, support Israel, and you don't support Palestinians or see how Israel is a bad thing and a failure, and how Israel is just being like Hitler's Germany was to the Jews in regards to Palestinians in/around Israel, you're being both a bigot and Anti Semetic since you don't like Palestinians who are also Semite people.
Last edited by VBScript; Feb 10, 2008 at 4:20 AM.
Still think it's painless for the baby boy?
Here's what's lost forever if your cock is cut.
http://geocities.com/painfulquestion...alresources#FF
I'm glad that my cock isn't mutilated.
My friend is going to try to "restore" or stretch out the rest of his remaining foreskin to regain some sensitivity that was lost when he got cut.
It's not the same as having a fully intact penis with a foreskin but he will regain some sensitivity by stretching the remaining tissue of his foreskin, and hopefully get coverage over his bare dry glans.
Not to mention that we find foreskin to be HOT!
Plus there is no need for those icky desensitizing synthetic lubes when you jack off at all!
I'm circumcised and I often fantasize about cutting the rest off.
No doubt such a comment will meet with shock and derision from more than a few, but I'm illustrating the fact that not everyone is traumatized by circumcision. Others above have already discussed the circumstances under which it is worthwhile medically so there's probably no point reiterating. There may be many instances where by definition the practice is 'unnecessary'. But are the critics of circumcision always motivated by concern for the helpless youngsters? It seems to me that support/rejection of the practice go in waves and we happen to be in the midst of a disapproving era. Maybe we should leave it up to the infants to decide for themselves.... but that would involve social changes more radical than the mere banning of circumcision.
Last edited by wutheringheights; Mar 30, 2008 at 7:46 AM. Reason: Further clarity
Interesting winding road to take to final conclusion.
I understand a little better where you are coming from after reading your profile: that you have "made serious inquiries regarding sexual reassignment" at different times in your life and thus your comment makes more sense...
At first I thought you might be into body modification like jack6two.
As a side point, (library research of medical studies performed), in countries with 'modern medical facilities' where circumcision was not culturally supported, circumcision rates for males were well below 1%. It's been a long time since I read it... it was either .2% or .02%. Clearly showing a complete absence of any pseudo-medical rationalizing for mutilating babies...
Regarding 'waves' of pro/con... I think that's just the randomness/fluctuation of human nature. I suppose the suffragette movement could have been viewed the same. And that change took a hundred years... women going from practically 'chattel' to pretty-close-to equal (yes, there are still prejudices, glass ceilings, etc). But we've come a long way baby. Women all through the work force, in management, doctors, lawyers, even heads of state. Perhaps we're not all the way there yet, but we're a lot, lot closer to the end than the beginning. Yet, I digress...
But I do like your final conclusion:
"Maybe we should leave it up to the infants to decide for themselves.... but that would involve social changes more radical than the mere banning of circumcision."
I'm going to add a female voice to this thread.
Most guys I know are circumcised. My ex-husband and my son are not. This was not a religious decision, just a personal one. We chose not to cut because it doesn't seem necessary. My ex was taught by his parents to "keep it clean or it will turn into a worm". He's never had any problem with cleanliness or disease. My bf is cut and he's never had a problem with cleanliness or disease. People talk about the sensitivity issue. I don't know if I agree. Cut guys can be just as sensitive as uncut guys. Without getting into TMI, I know one certain guy in my life that has no problems with lack of sensitivity. So, it really is personal preference. In the US, many babies are circumcised, in other places they are not. For very few people in the world, the practice has anything to do with religion. It has to do with peer pressure. People look at me in horror when I say my son is not circumcised. I always hear comments about how gross that is. I know my ex and I taught him to keep it clean. It all boils down to choice. I believe the practice will slowly fade away in the US, but it will be awhile.
Rock
Damnit!!!... Excuse me, I have to go have a very awkward & unpleasant conversation with my parents....rabble...grumble...friggin...
“If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.”
-Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
Ugh. I support Israel. I don't see it as a failure - that land was SWAMP when we took it back. Israelis don't go gassing Palestinians, but they don't see any problem with sending missles at Israelis (not something Jews in Nazi Germany could do to the Nazis, and this is really a big thing in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship right now). And the Palestinians have access to Jordan, Syria and Egypt - oh, wait, those MUSLIM countries don't seem to care much about their brethren...
That said, I also think the Palestinians should have their land - the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as two separate counties and governments (Fatah and Hamas). The rest should be Israel. And the UN should heavily police the entire f*cking thing. Any missle shot should be publicized and the UN should go into that area and bomb the shit out of where the missile came from. Massive public education, secular, should be required, and large amounts of money should be poured in to bring up the living standard - most first world countries don't have terrorism anywhere near on the scale as the Middle East. Any terrorist group, Jewish or Muslim or other should be outlawed, banned, and if found to be congregating the members should be exiled from both countries. I'm sick and tired of the fighting, and I don't even live there! Note: it's a red-button issue for me, and thankfully I don't set anyone foreign policy!
Not that I'm digressing or anything..
VBScript was just trying to cause trouble. He was banned for posting a lot of rubbish, particularly hateful things.
EDIT: I edited this post and the changes I made turned into a new post for some reason. Sorry.
Last edited by BiphobiaFighter; Mar 31, 2008 at 2:45 AM.
VBScript was just trying to cause trouble. He was banned for posting a lot of rubbish, particularly hateful things (about transpeople, if I'm not getting him mixed up with someone else) just to cause trouble.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks