Once you get older, you get attached to the thing. If you never knew you had it, there is nothing to miss.

In my view, that vast majority of cut as infants adults are HAPPY with the state of things, and are HAPPY this was done as infant when they didn't have awareness about what was happening, and didn't have the chance to get attached to this abstract thing that they don't miss.

Of course if you to choose the cut for your infant, it is not guaranteed how they will feel later, but if you seriously believe a significant percentage of cut as infants adults are distressed in the slightest about it, you're just totally wrong.

Once you get older, you get attached to the thing. If you never knew you had it, there is nothing to miss.

In my view, that vast majority of cut as infants adults are HAPPY with the state of things, and are HAPPY this was done as infant when they didn't have awareness about what was happening, and didn't have the chance to get attached to this abstract thing that they don't miss.

Of course if you to choose the cut for your infant, it is not guaranteed how they will feel later, but if you seriously believe a significant percentage of cut as infants adults are distressed in the slightest about it, you're just totally wrong.

Yes, but they would be no less distressed by not having the chop.

Once you get older, you get attached to the thing. If you never knew you had it, there is nothing to miss.

In my view, that vast majority of cut as infants adults are HAPPY with the state of things, and are HAPPY this was done as infant when they didn't have awareness about what was happening, and didn't have the chance to get attached to this abstract thing that they don't miss.

Of course if you to choose the cut for your infant, it is not guaranteed how they will feel later, but if you seriously believe a significant percentage of cut as infants adults are distressed in the slightest about it, you're just totally wrong.

Yes, but they would be no less distressed by not having the chop.

I don't doubt that, but happy is happy.

BTW, I just found out that circumcision rate peaked in the USA in 1971 at over 90 percent!

Today, it is estimated to be 30 percent for newborns while 70 percent of current American males are cut.

However with the recent press almost endorsing circumcision I have a feeling it will increase again.

Of course infants can't give consent, but did you get my point? The vast majority of adults who had this done if you asked them, knowing what you know as an adult, would you give consent if you as a baby could give consent, would say YES. Yes I made that up but it is based on the obvious fact that most men love their own dicks, cut or not, so if you grow up cut, you are happy with your cut one, and would be happy to approve the way it got that way which you cannot remember!

Another point is AESTHETICS. There is a difference. Men who grow up cut generally like the aesthetics of the cut condition and would freely choose it. Making a choice for the surgery after infancy is indeed traumatic. For an infant, there is no time to even think about it. Count to ten. It's over. Yes there is pain of course but not the pain anyone remembers.

I wish I had thought of THANKING my loving parents for doing this good mitzvah to me/for me way back then.

You may think I am joking. I am not. Being cut is the cat's meow.

Once you get older, you get attached to the thing. If you never knew you had it, there is nothing to miss.

In my view, that vast majority of cut as infants adults are HAPPY with the state of things, and are HAPPY this was done as infant when they didn't have awareness about what was happening, and didn't have the chance to get attached to this abstract thing that they don't miss.

Of course if you to choose the cut for your infant, it is not guaranteed how they will feel later, but if you seriously believe a significant percentage of cut as infants adults are distressed in the slightest about it, you're just totally wrong.

Yes, but they would be no less distressed by not having the chop.

I don't doubt that, but happy is happy.

BTW, I just found out that circumcision rate peaked in the USA in 1971 at over 90 percent!

Today, it is estimated to be 30 percent for newborns while 70 percent of current American males are cut.

However with the recent press almost endorsing circumcision I have a feeling it will increase again.

Of course infants can't give consent, but did you get my point? The vast majority of adults who had this done if you asked them, knowing what you know as an adult, would you give consent if you as a baby could give consent, would say YES. Yes I made that up but it is based on the obvious fact that most men love their own dicks, cut or not, so if you grow up cut, you are happy with your cut one, and would be happy to approve the way it got that way which you cannot remember!

You forget...I am from Europe...so no...no way!

Something like this with a long religious/tribal/ethnic tradition AND scientific evidence of proven medical benefits most definitely should NOT be banned anywhere.

I have already pointed out that the 'long tradition' argument is flawed yet you still continue to use it. Why?

Something like this with a long religious/tribal/ethnic tradition AND scientific evidence of proven medical benefits most definitely should NOT be banned anywhere.

I have already pointed out that the 'long tradition' argument is flawed yet you still continue to use it. Why?

Let me check. Perhaps I don't recognize you as my boss.

Anyway, no long tradition alone doesn't make something acceptable.

Stoning adulterers is not acceptable, for example.

But when you have something with a long tradition AND also more modern scientific evidence that the thing has definite benefits, that points to a thing that societies should have TOLERANCE about, and if not promote it, at least don't persecute it with onerous laws.

Behave. Nobody is suggesting castration. You know that but you can't resist the drama Queene act.

I see that Jing likes this.I think he may have misunderstood the meaning of my post...

Something like this with a long religious/tribal/ethnic tradition AND scientific evidence of proven medical benefits most definitely should NOT be banned anywhere.

I have already pointed out that the 'long tradition' argument is flawed yet you still continue to use it. Why?

Let me check. Perhaps I don't recognize you as my boss.

Anyway, no long tradition alone doesn't make something acceptable.

Stoning adulterers is not acceptable, for example.

But when you have something with a long tradition AND also more modern scientific evidence that the thing has definite benefits, that points to a thing that societies should have TOLERANCE about, and if not promote it, at least don't persecute it with onerous laws.

The only person who's not being shown TOLERANCE in this is the poor sod who's having part of his dick chopped off.

Something like this with a long religious/tribal/ethnic tradition AND scientific evidence of proven medical benefits most definitely should NOT be banned anywhere.

I have already pointed out that the 'long tradition' argument is flawed yet you still continue to use it. Why?

Let me check. Perhaps I don't recognize you as my boss.

Anyway, no long tradition alone doesn't make something acceptable.

Stoning adulterers is not acceptable, for example.

But when you have something with a long tradition AND also more modern scientific evidence that the thing has definite benefits, that points to a thing that societies should have TOLERANCE about, and if not promote it, at least don't persecute it with onerous laws.

Since the argument is flawed it can be disregarded.

Why exactly is stoning adulterers not acceptable? Or slavery... Or perhaps more on topic, taking unruly children to the edge of the village and stoning them to death?

Behave. Nobody is suggesting castration. You know that but you can't resist the drama Queene act.

I see that Jing likes this.I think he may have misunderstood the meaning of my post...

I got it 100 percent dude. Do you think I'm stupid? I decided to be ironic.

How original. An emoticon only post. Such wit.

Something like this with a long religious/tribal/ethnic tradition AND scientific evidence of proven medical benefits most definitely should NOT be banned anywhere.

I have already pointed out that the 'long tradition' argument is flawed yet you still continue to use it. Why?

Let me check. Perhaps I don't recognize you as my boss.

Anyway, no long tradition alone doesn't make something acceptable.

Stoning adulterers is not acceptable, for example.

But when you have something with a long tradition AND also more modern scientific evidence that the thing has definite benefits, that points to a thing that societies should have TOLERANCE about, and if not promote it, at least don't persecute it with onerous laws.

The only person who's not being shown TOLERANCE in this is the poor sod who's having part of his dick chopped off.

No he's being shown COMPASSION by doing the deed of health promotion at the most convenient time when it is well known he will never remember and almost definitely never miss something he never had.

...

Why exactly is stoning adulterers not acceptable? Or slavery... Or perhaps more on topic, taking unruly children to the edge of the village and stoning them to death?

Sorry, but do you seriously think even I will take a baiting question like that seriously? Maybe try it on with someone else. I have limits.

No he's being shown COMPASSION by doing the deed of health promotion at the most convenient time when it is well known he will never remember and almost definitely never miss something he never had.

Is that it? He'll miss something he never had?

No he's being shown COMPASSION by doing the deed of health promotion at the most convenient time when it is well known he will never remember and almost definitely never miss something he never had.

Is that it? He'll miss something he never had?

Like I said before, some unfortunate souls start reading extremist anti-circumcision websites and decide their life can never be complete without the foreskin. My guess, one in 100,000.

...

Why exactly is stoning adulterers not acceptable? Or slavery... Or perhaps more on topic, taking unruly children to the edge of the village and stoning them to death?

Sorry, but do you seriously think even I will take a baiting question like that seriously? Maybe try it on with someone else. I have limits.

It was not intended to bait you. They are examples of how society has come to understand about the rights of an individual.

Would you be happy with an affidavit needing to be signed by the parents that the circumcision was being performed solely on the grounds of health reasons. If this was found not to be the case in the future then the parents would be prosecuted. This would seem to meet your criteria.

...

Why exactly is stoning adulterers not acceptable? Or slavery... Or perhaps more on topic, taking unruly children to the edge of the village and stoning them to death?

Sorry, but do you seriously think even I will take a baiting question like that seriously? Maybe try it on with someone else. I have limits.

It was not intended to bait you. They are examples of how society has come to understand about the rights of an individual.

Would you be happy with an affidavit needing to be signed by the parents that the circumcision was being performed solely on the grounds of health reasons. If this was found not to be the case in the future then the parents would be prosecuted. This would seem to meet your criteria.

No. No need for any affadavit. It is the parents choice. Period.

...

Why exactly is stoning adulterers not acceptable? Or slavery... Or perhaps more on topic, taking unruly children to the edge of the village and stoning them to death?

Sorry, but do you seriously think even I will take a baiting question like that seriously? Maybe try it on with someone else. I have limits.

It was not intended to bait you. They are examples of how society has come to understand about the rights of an individual.

Would you be happy with an affidavit needing to be signed by the parents that the circumcision was being performed solely on the grounds of health reasons. If this was found not to be the case in the future then the parents would be prosecuted. This would seem to meet your criteria.

No. No need for any affadavit. It is the parents choice. Period.

But it would be the parents choice AND it would offer protection for the child against un-needed surgery. I would have thought you would be all for it as it meets your stated criteria while also highlighting the health benefit worldwide. It could also lead to an increase in take up which you seem to want. Win:win.

When I came to Thailand years ago I met a young lady in a bar one evening who graciously accepted my invitation to return to my hotel.

Next morning at breakfast she assured me that:

i) Older men made better lovers

ii) A few extra pounds was a turn on

iii) Circumcised penises were far more enjoyable.

And that was before I gave her a few baht towards the sick buffalo's vet bills.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big issue. 316 posts in a private forum, for goodness sake!

Baby boys have been having their foreskins snipped for thousands of years and where it's been the custom no one's thought much about it until now.

But now it's a cause celebre. I suspect it's just an irritant idea that's got fixed in some people's minds and can't be let go.

Really, how many snipped guys do you know who are fretting over their lost foreskins and the supposed violation of their rights that went with them? How many are going to give their parents the rounds of the kitchen when they meet in the next life about this matter? I can just imagine walking into Arrivals in Paradise and getting stuck into my mum and dad over it. (Thieving mutilators that they were, ignorance and conformity notwithstanding.)

If you want to preserve the integrity of your baby boy's flap, good luck to you. If you want to adhere to the ancient practice of circumcision for whatever reason - religious, health or social practice - then it's up to you. I really doubt the little bloke is going to hold any grudges.

Baby boys have been having their foreskins snipped for thousands of years and where it's been the custom no one's thought much about it until now.

But now it's a cause celebre. I suspect it's just an irritant idea that's got fixed in some people's minds and can't be let go.

Would it not have been the same for slavery and womens right to vote? Both no doubt stated small and slowly built up, they were fervently opposed for quite some time and in the case of slavery in the US it caused a civil war. Seems almost unthinkable in this day and age.

Would it not have been the same for slavery and womens right to vote?

Isn't that comparison just a little bit of a stretch?

Would it not have been the same for slavery and womens right to vote?

Isn't that comparison just a little bit of a stretch?

Not within the context I used I don't think, things which would have started off small and now it's hard to really imagine it otherwise. Can you imagine an MP bringing up bringing up the banning of slavery or giving women the vote say 300 years ago? Can you imagine the opposite now? Can you see a time in the future when people would be in the same position as ourselves in that they cannot imagine what it was like when children did not have the same protection as adults? It will happen so it is only a question of when, perhaps this is the time.

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Yes, I think I'd rather have had my flap nipped as a nipper than be enslaved to a harsh master/mistress.

Giving children the same rights as their parents and other adults will, in some people's minds, not come until the family has been stood down from its place as the primary caregiving agency, and child care/ child protection becomes the responsibility of the state, regardless of what the parents think.

Plato advocated equality and protection for all boys and girls once the Guardians had separated the children from their mothers in infancy. There are equality advocates and child protectors among us whose philosophy, if they took it to its logical extension, would imply the same.

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Giving children the same rights as their parents and other adults will, in some people's minds, not come until the family has been stood down from its place as the primary caregiving agency, and child care/ child protection becomes the responsibility of the state, regardless of what the parents think.

One of an infinite number of possible futures though I would be happy to admit that this possible future would be more likely than others. It would however require a diametric change in the whole basis of law, all law, because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, law does not mandate good it protects from bad. A balance is needed and as a society we are far away from coming even close though we are no doubt closer at present than we were 100, 200 or 500 years ago. Even now within society we still see private ownership of states and their people, less as the years pass but they are still there for all to see and they make a joke of the universal declaration of human rights as they are signatories but simply ignore it as a whole. Most other states ignore Article 30 which is just as bad.

30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

With regard to the topic at hand, Article 30 is being ignored in relation to the following....

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I hope UG's optimism is proved correct but history suggests large parts of society will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make people understand something as simple as the basics of it being wrong to own another human being. Well over 500,000 people died fighting in the US before the practice was stopped and it was 10's of years more before it was fully accepted by most. Within my field and after reading some posts on this thread I have no doubt that all too many people are still unable to grasp the concept of something that was established some 150 years ago, so what chance they understand it also includes the ownership of children?

Another point is AESTHETICS. There is a difference. Men who grow up cut generally like the aesthetics of the cut condition and would freely choose it.

Now youré argument is getting really desperate. Are you seriously trying to convince us it looks better. I can imagine the poll. We asked 100 snipped men if their penis looked better snipped......... Mmm. But even then you only say "generally". It's like asking 100 people who have painted their houses green, pink and orange if their house looks better than the white house next door.

I would imagine if you carried out a poll of 100 men who haven't had the snip, they would all say theirs looks better.

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Its not about a little bit of skin, its about a Childs rights and preventing his parents from mutilating him for no reasons other than religion or aesthetics.

When I came to Thailand years ago I met a young lady in a bar one evening who graciously accepted my invitation to return to my hotel.

Next morning at breakfast she assured me that:

i) Older men made better lovers

ii) A few extra pounds was a turn on

iii) Circumcised penises were far more enjoyable.

And that was before I gave her a few baht towards the sick buffalo's vet bills.

That must've been distressing for a skinny young hoodie like yourself

SC

No he's being shown COMPASSION by doing the deed of health promotion at the most convenient time when it is well known he will never remember and almost definitely never miss something he never had.

Is that it? He'll miss something he never had?

So if "He wouldn't miss what he never had" then conversely, were he to take the snip later in life, he might look back with melancholy at what he had lost?

That suggests that people who are circumcised as infants don't know any better, but those who have tried both options as an adult may regret having irreversibly chosen the one from which there is no rolling back.

I still don't understand, if the vast majority of circumcised men are so delighted with their bald heads, why the rate of circumcision is declining so markedly in the United States. It suggests that some circumcised men are choosing not to circumcise their children despite the joy that the operation has brought themselves, while very few uncircumcised men are opting to join the ranks of the cut

SC

EDIT: Typos corrected. My apologies for not checking before I posted

So if "He wouldn't miss what he never had" then conversely, were he to take the snip later in life, he might look back with melancholy at what he had lost?

One could also add that he wouldn't miss what he had not lost because he would still have it. The entire 'wouldn't miss' argument therefore cancels itself out.