About time someone that was circumcised sued their parents for abuse

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

22 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

About time someone that was circumcised sued their parents for abuse

Awful idea.

I'd disown such a Brat.

6 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

enabled young Muslim males to receive circumcisions, a significant aspect of their faith

Oh well, I'm glad to hear they're not offering young Muslim females circumcisions. 

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

There can be 'religious' without mutilating the genitals and removing the most sexually sensitive part of a male without their permission, right??

 

Why be tolerant of people that fiddle with little boys penises??

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'd disown such a Brat.

They'd hopefully have disowned and sued you for massively diminishing their (and their partner's) sexlife, until the day that they die, because you believed in some fairy-nonsense and felt you could mutilate them forever, without their consent, because of it. 

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

Infants are non-religious. 

 

They shouldn't be tolerated, just as they are? 

5 hours ago, NONG CHOK said:

Prior to retiring from work my Philipino work mates told me how many young boys died there from unsanitory circumscision procedures done by quacks in the very poor areas.

Yes so raise the medical standards for that.

It is the Filipino custom.

24 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Infants are non-religious. 

 

They shouldn't be tolerated, just as they are? 

Infants are infants.

This new story is about older Muslim males.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

No one should be tolerant of child genital mutilation.

It is every moral person's business to speak up.for those who cannot and stop genital mutilation, male and female.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Infants are infants.

This new story is about older Muslim males.

" It depends on family, region, and country.^[3] The preferred age is usually seven, although some Muslims are circumcised as early as on the seventh day after birth and as late as at the commencement of puberty.^[2][4][6"

 

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision)}

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

But not the mutilation of children!

Anyone who has had sex with a circumcised women (clitoris removal) will know they feel nothing and that this procedure is not just mutilation but a crime against women and girls.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Let's be tolerant of both the religious and non religious.

It's not religion that is the issue here... Its child abuse. 

 

There are plenty of none religious people who are circumcised, as well as many religious peole who are NOT. 1

 

A large percentage of American males are circumcised, even if from non religious families or don't follow a religion themselves.

 

I am surprised at your stance on this issue...most out of character for you. 

 

And to say you would disown your own children, calling them brats, because they were upset you mutilated their sexual organs when they were babies... Wow. 

 

4 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It's literally part of your sex organ.  It protects and moisturises the tip of the penis and has many nerve endings that give sexual pleasure.

 

It protects the tip of your penis from your clothes.  This avoids a double dose of desensitisation.

 

There is no reason for removing it and it only decreases sexual pleasure by a considerable amount.

 

It's unnecessary and barbaric.

As was the custom I was cut the day after I was born.

I have wonderful / extreme pleasure from sex and from masturbation. 

I have no concerns that being cut has damaged my sex pleasures.

6 hours ago, Myran said:

They should also offer to cut infants' eye lids off, in case they're having trouble keeping their eyes clean.

Replace them (eyelids) with the foreskin and give them foresight! ????

37 minutes ago, scorecard said:

As was the custom I was cut the day after I was born.

I have wonderful / extreme pleasure from sex and from masturbation. 

I have no concerns that being cut has damaged my sex pleasures.

And Japanese and Korean gals do not find you disgusting.

3 hours ago, proton said:

But not the mutilation of children!

Rather an exaggeration. 

Two major Abrahamic religions mandate male circumcision.

It's a majority secular thing in some major countries.

I think any extreme reactions to this pro or con are totally absurd.

It has nothing to do with female cutting.

The best way is the calm and sober middle way on this.

Accept religions that do it. 

Accept national cultures that promote it.

Accept it's best done in infancy.

Medically it is very very low risk when done by competent practioners.

Realize it's not necessary but there are some benefits to doing it.

So it's an option. There is no right or wrong answer on it.

Just chill out.

Again, it's totally OK either way.

It's totally OK for parents to make this decision either way for baby boys.

Get over yourselves dudes!

6 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

Actually, the bands at the back of a retracted foreskin are the most sexually sensitive part of a male's anatomy. 

 

If yours was removed before you became sexually active, you've never experienced full and proper sexual sensations, and will never be able to.

 

You also have my deepest, deepest sympathies. ????

Creepy

6 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It absolutely does.  You don't want to believe it because you don't have yours and facing what you have lost is too difficult.

What nonsense. Nobody wants it.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Rather an exaggeration. 

Two major Abrahamic religions mandate male circumcision.

It's a majority secular thing in some major countries.

I think any extreme reactions to this pro or con are totally absurd.

It has nothing to do with female cutting.

The best way is the calm and sober middle way on this.

Accept religions that do it. 

Accept national cultures that promote it.

Accept it's best done in infancy.

Medically it is very very low risk when done by competent practioners.

Realize it's not necessary but there are some benefits to doing it.

So it's an option. There is no right or wrong answer on it.

Just chill out.

Again, it's totally OK either way.

It's totally OK for parents to make this decision either way for baby boys.

Get over yourselves dudes!

Medically more hygenic and women prefer it

 

https://www.dr-kuehhas.at/en/women-prefer-circumcised-men/#:~:text=The authors found that the,found circumcised men more attractive.

 

 

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It's literally part of your sex organ.  It protects and moisturises the tip of the penis and has many nerve endings that give sexual pleasure.

 

It protects the tip of your penis from your clothes.  This avoids a double dose of desensitisation.

 

There is no reason for removing it and it only decreases sexual pleasure by a considerable amount.

 

It's unnecessary and barbaric.

Not barbaric at all. Sensible way to clean the area. Women prefer it. Guys who have it don't want it back. It reduces disease risk.

 

Your views are narrow minded nonsense. Must be jealous.

7 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

No. No need for it. That is a lie. 

 

It's no more unhygienic to be uncircumcised than not, unless you are a person who does not clean their body. 

 

Also it takes away a lot of pleasure sensation when you are having sex.  

 

Your end will be dry and the delicate sensitive skin will thicken as defense from abrasions, which leads to lack of feeling. 

 

These religions only invented it to take away pleasure from sex and masturbation...as they think that is a sin.  That is the only reason.. 

 

It should be illegal

 

 

 

Not true. Ask any guy about sex that has had it. Making up theories.

 

It should be more common. Women love it.

 

I question whether this rather sectarian and emotive topic is suitable for the forum. 

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

In order to bolster support and grant the practice its due respect and legitimacy, Nongprue officials have highlighted the various benefits of circumcision, particularly in terms of personal hygiene and cleanliness. By labelling the procedure as a contributing factor to overall health, they have effectively established a scientific and moral foundation for the cause

Just another form of indoctrination....

Thailand and the Muslim community moving into the

21st century.  Not

 

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's totally OK for parents to make this decision either way for baby boys.

Get over yourselves dudes!

It's child abuse. end of. 

 

11 hours ago, JensenZ said:

Nature doesn't have soap, but there's water.

 

Nature also doesn't provide toothbrushes, but people lost their teeth a lot earlier hundreds of years ago... and infections in the mouth from rotting teeth used to kill many people.

 

It's not a bad idea to give nature a helping hand.

Nature provides the raw materials to make soap.

As for ancestors losing teeth that was just down to laziness, alternatives to toothbrushes were widely available.

As for giving nature a helping hand I do every time I cleanse, just expose the area and wash properly... why have surgery?

11 hours ago, Will B Good said:

On what planet are these people? 

 

Human rights?...........something is seriously wrong.

Planet Earth and it's called humanity.

90-100% of Muslims nations circumcise that include Christians. In the US it's 58-70%.

It's called religion (more accurately cultism) and typical of every faith some actions reflect symbolic aspect of its teachings. As such religions are generally not known for biological, scientific or intellectual precision. 

Take a wafer at communion? Hey, eat a sandwich for substance or chew some gum. Go ahead, touch my head. Spit and say "pu pu pu" after receiving good news. The Bible says genocide and slavery are justified.