bendejo Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Demonstrators chanting "fore skin, fore skin..." Gotta have Sharpton there, he always has something to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Regarding the general controversy about doing the cut at the usual time at infancy, intactists are correct that doing the cut is a decision that will impact the male for life and also that it is done without consent because an infant can't give consent. But they fail to acknowledge that NOT doing the cut at infancy also has usually lifetime consequences as well. As there are benefits to doing the cut, it is well known if it is NOT done at infancy the vast majority of males will never do the cut (fear, pain, inconvenience) unless medically NECESSARY or in some tribal society that does it much later. Edited January 22, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw25rw Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm happy for you and your relationship with your special something. Are you happy for me being VERY PLEASED INDEED to be cut and having it done while I was a baby? I think probably not. In my view, the uncut side mostly refuses to see it both ways and the cut side pretty much usually can. Nobody on the cut side thinks everyone should be forced to be cut (except perhaps Jihadist Muslims but best not to go there), but the uncut side seems all about forcing everyone to not be cut and stripping parents of having this choice for their babies. Surely there are much more important CRUSADES in the world. Opposing FEMALE circumcision, an entirely different procedure, might be a good start! It's not my special something. It's my normal something. I wasn't mutilated as a child and learned to live with it. I think it's a bad thing to do to a child, boy or girl, and only justifiable in exceptional cases. Not sure if you mean you learned to live with a foreskin? I could understand why you would have to though. Or you think those without had to learn to live without it? Surely you don't miss what you didn't have, certainly at an age when you wouldn't know any better! Hardly a mutilation in the real sense of the word. A tool is only as good as the user after all is said and done! But I think the last part of your post is a little disturbing! Under what circumstances would it be justifiable to perform clitoral circumcisions on girls? I'm guessing you didn't mean it the way it comes across? Or did you? It's there from birth, so being uncircumcised is clearly the normal and natural condition. Sometimes circumcisions go wrong and the boy goes through life with no penis. But I suppose it's OK if he doesn't remember it.Of course it's mutilation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I posted earlier that I used to live where 8 or 9 years old was normal for circumcision. In today's herald, an article about that same cultural group. And keep in mind, this is done without anaesthetic. \ http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/boys-hospitalised-after-backyard-circumcisions-2015013013#axzz3QMvnbdQw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's not my special something. It's my normal something. I wasn't mutilated as a child and learned to live with it. I think it's a bad thing to do to a child, boy or girl, and only justifiable in exceptional cases. Not sure if you mean you learned to live with a foreskin? I could understand why you would have to though. Or you think those without had to learn to live without it? Surely you don't miss what you didn't have, certainly at an age when you wouldn't know any better! Hardly a mutilation in the real sense of the word. A tool is only as good as the user after all is said and done! But I think the last part of your post is a little disturbing! Under what circumstances would it be justifiable to perform clitoral circumcisions on girls? I'm guessing you didn't mean it the way it comes across? Or did you? It's there from birth, so being uncircumcised is clearly the normal and natural condition. Sometimes circumcisions go wrong and the boy goes through life with no penis. But I suppose it's OK if he doesn't remember it.Of course it's mutilation. No it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw25rw Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's not my special something. It's my normal something. I wasn't mutilated as a child and learned to live with it. I think it's a bad thing to do to a child, boy or girl, and only justifiable in exceptional cases. Not sure if you mean you learned to live with a foreskin? I could understand why you would have to though. Or you think those without had to learn to live without it? Surely you don't miss what you didn't have, certainly at an age when you wouldn't know any better! Hardly a mutilation in the real sense of the word. A tool is only as good as the user after all is said and done! But I think the last part of your post is a little disturbing! Under what circumstances would it be justifiable to perform clitoral circumcisions on girls? I'm guessing you didn't mean it the way it comes across? Or did you? It's there from birth, so being uncircumcised is clearly the normal and natural condition. Sometimes circumcisions go wrong and the boy goes through life with no penis. But I suppose it's OK if he doesn't remember it.Of course it's mutilation. No it is not. Removing living tissue is mutilation. Just as much as tribal scars or piercings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1Str8 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The activists are right. This is one pathetic thing to decide to circumcise any man just because they think it is right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Mutilation. Schmutilation. Call it a bowler hat if you like. It's not nearly the big deal that obsessive intactivists make it out to be. There has got to be thousands of much more important issues in the world today. Next ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw25rw Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I posted earlier that I used to live where 8 or 9 years old was normal for circumcision. In today's herald, an article about that same cultural group. And keep in mind, this is done without anaesthetic. \ http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/boys-hospitalised-after-backyard-circumcisions-2015013013#axzz3QMvnbdQw A couple of years ago in London, I got talking to 2 Nigerian women with a baby boy in a McDonald's. They were laughing that he was going to be circumcised so he would be "big and hard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 When I read the posts of the PRO-circumcisions and the reasons therefore - avoiding some diseases - I remember a doctor who asked my wife many, many years ago: "May I give you the advice to remove your uterus. Then you cannot get an uterus-cancer." If I had been there I would have answered: "May I suggest your brain to be removed? Then You cannot get any brain attack and cannot give me any more such an awesome tip." But be sure, I read about the pros and cons of a circumcision. There are cases when a cirsumcision is necessary, i.e. phimosis etc. And as already written by some posters it's seriously debatable if the parents can make this decision for the young children. The cirsumcision once being performed cannot be made undone. In Germany it's proven that the number of problematic circumcisions is bigger than the number of saved lives by cirsumcision, i.e. penis cancer etc. And it has not yet been finally explored, what are the psychological consequences of such a treatment. There are contradictory statements of experience of pain. Referring to my first paragraph, is it life-threatening if you miss a cirsumcision in the early years of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Parents can make these decisions for their infants and they do. Next ... Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not sure if you mean you learned to live with a foreskin? I could understand why you would have to though. Or you think those without had to learn to live without it? Surely you don't miss what you didn't have, certainly at an age when you wouldn't know any better! Hardly a mutilation in the real sense of the word. A tool is only as good as the user after all is said and done! But I think the last part of your post is a little disturbing! Under what circumstances would it be justifiable to perform clitoral circumcisions on girls? I'm guessing you didn't mean it the way it comes across? Or did you? It's there from birth, so being uncircumcised is clearly the normal and natural condition. Sometimes circumcisions go wrong and the boy goes through life with no penis. But I suppose it's OK if he doesn't remember it.Of course it's mutilation. No it is not. Removing living tissue is mutilation. Just as much as tribal scars or piercings. bullshit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lissos Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Parents can make these decisions for their infants and they do. Next ... Parents who don't insist on circumcision are also making a decision, I concede, and up until 18 or so they are making all kinds of decisions for them that can shape them in all kinds of long standing ways (whether they place them into certain after school activities that promote self discipline and team work or leave them to roam the streets after dark or veg out playing uber violent video games and becoming reclusive, or feed them nutritious food that promotes good physical or mental development or feed them junk food and drive them around in a car full of cigarette smoke and getting into fights in front of the children). Until 18 or so, there is a view that a child born to parents is 'property', in their care and entirely under their influence (for better or worse) and I accept the reality of that until independence. However, once that claim to physical and mental ownership expires though (as it should) the child (now adult) can then reverse many (not all easily, for sure) of the earlier influences / choices made by parents and can go their own way as a sovereign human being if determined to. In the case of infant circumcision though, the parental decision of circumcision is a life long alteration affecting a person and although many who are cut don't see it as an issue, some others do resent it greatly and should not be ignored. For this reason I believe that the only time circumcision should be performed is either out of proveable (documented) urgent medical nescessity (because the male will understand in later years) or when a male is no longer in parental care and no longer has direct or more subtle cultural pressure influencing the decision. Once that point is reached, the decision is entirely up to the individual and they have to live with the change. Even if may be more difficult to perform later on, that is not any argument for getting it done on the sly when an infant is oblivious to something that is a life long alteration for them live with. Personally I don't see myself as some kind of 'obsessive intactist' because an independent adult can do whatever they like to themselves if they choose. Circumcised infants and children essentially end up as 'marked' for the duration of their life by a parental / cultural / religious decision made for them. It is difficult enough to move on from various conditionings installed by parents that some may find they resent upon independence, without adding one of a physical alteration performed on an infant that will last until they physically expire. Boys often have conservative haircuts imposed on them by parents and schools until independence, but at least that is going to grow again after being cut. Thus ends my Saturday morning 'opinion' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) This is an endless loop. If you DON'T do circumcision at infancy you have ALSO made a lifetime decision for the boy child that it can never be done at ... INFANCY ... absolutely the ideal time to do it. Later it will be a much BIGGER DEAL to ever do it, and please don't be so disingenuous, for the most part he WON'T! The intactivists rudely insist on pushing their narrow view of "morality" on parents with restrictive LAWS on those who choose to do this for their infants. Yes, for, not to, as it is done with good intentions. This advocacy for legal restrictions on parental choice for male infant circumcision is the opposite of a liberal position considering, deal with it again, there DEFINITELY are both pros and cons to the procedure. Of course it's a case by case, not suggesting it should be legal for parents to make ANY medical decision for children ... but in this case, such a safe procedure with known benefits, yes the choice should be legal in all countries. Edited January 31, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lissos Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Later it will be a much BIGGER DEAL to ever do it, and please don't be so disingenuous, for the most part he WON'T! Perhaps a biigger deal at a later age, but a procedure where individual consent / choice is now fully involved in the process. Until that age, a male child (especially at infant stage) is stripped of choice and cannot give their consent (specifically 'why' circumcision at infancy is chosen by advocates in some communities, IMO). In some communities, it takes place at ages 10-12 or so, and although the validity of consent / choice is still wobbly at that age due to cultural / family expectations essentially insisting on it, at that age it could be said to be an improvement in the sense that a Boy is at least an aware participant in the 'given' reasoning (for example, as a procedure being carried out as a male's rite of passage). I think the choice / consent issue is the core of my message here really, rather than it being about the pros and cons of circumcision. Personally I cannot envisage a scenario where masses of late teens or adults are furious and resentfull that their parents didn't decide to get them cut at infancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 This item is too interesting not to post: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/regrowing-foreskins-like-salamander-arms How One Company Aims to Help Circumcised Men Grow Their Foreskin Back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) No one should be circumcised before they are old enough to decide if they want to alter their body or not. Edited February 20, 2015 by BKKBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 No one should be circumcised before they are old enough to decide if they want to alter their body or not. We've heard that already but sorry, lots of people disagree. The reasons are on this thread. No point in repetition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 No one should be circumcised before they are old enough to decide if they want to alter their body or not.We've heard that already but sorry, lots of people disagree. The reasons are on this thread. No point in repetition. Well, my argument are very easy to understand. Im not circumcised. If my parents circumcised me for religious or hygienic reasons wouldnt matter. I dont want to be circumcised. I would be mad at them if they didnt let me decide. Only argument needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 If you had been cut, 99 percent plus chance you would be just as happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lissos Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 We've heard that already but sorry, lots of people disagree. Usually the ones who wish to inflict it upon another generation, because it was done to them. IMO, the article you linked to yesterday largely undermined most of the justifications conjured up for circumcision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Rocco Siffredi, the pornstar of the 90s circumcised himself as an adult to fit into the US porn market and make more money. He obviously have done a lot of testing before and after the circumcision. He says that feels less pleasure/loss of sensation. Its not only the head of the penis that can be stimulated. The skin around it can feel stimulation if you are uncut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Not sure why you are so invested in this issue JT. It strikes me that this anachronistic behaviour is really only backed by religious fundamentalists (who make up a sizeable minority of the world's population) and people who have had it done and are desperately scrabbling around for reasons to justify their own predicament. As time passes, fewer and fewer people will be circumcised. In the end, in a few decades, only the religious nut families will be left cutting their kids. Unless you determine it is a necessary cultural rite of passage, all the other evidence supporting it is weak at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 It is still popular in the USA and very popular in some Asian nations such as the Philippines. Obviously also Muslim nations and the one Jewish majority nation. It is standard for Jews and Muslims ... no connection to fundamentalism. I think it is better cut as do the vast majority of cut men. So don't go overboard in suppressing a good thing. Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't believe it is a good thing. Come back to me on this in around 60 years. The numbers will be proportionately lower, I am sure. Already many Jewish families are opting out of this unnecessary rite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is still popular in the USA and very popular in some Asian nations such as the Philippines. Obviously also Muslim nations and the one Jewish majority nation. It is standard for Jews and Muslims ... no connection to fundamentalism. I think it is better cut as do the vast majority of cut men. So don't go overboard in suppressing a good thing. Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app All men are born with foreskin. Evolution tells us that it is something that is usefull. If it was useless or totally unnecessary, men would be born without it. Darwin stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is still popular in the USA and very popular in some Asian nations such as the Philippines. Obviously also Muslim nations and the one Jewish majority nation. It is standard for Jews and Muslims ... no connection to fundamentalism. I think it is better cut as do the vast majority of cut men. So don't go overboard in suppressing a good thing. Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app All men are born with foreskin. Evolution tells us that it is something that is usefull. If it was useless or totally unnecessary, men would be born without it. Darwin stuff. So keep yours. No worries. How's your appendix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And the skin at the top of your ears. Do a Spok for your health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, Jews are a tiny minority in the world and they won't stop doing it. Muslims are a significant percentage of population in the world and they won't stop doing it. So yes among the rest of the world I would agree the general trend is moving to fewer circumcisions except for parts of Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Well, Jews are a tiny minority in the world and they won't stop doing it. Muslims are a significant percentage of population in the world and they won't stop doing it. So yes among the rest of the world I would agree the general trend is moving to fewer circumcisions except for parts of Africa. If you dont connect it to religion and/or tradition.What is the motivation/reason to do it all? Give me a strong logical argument in favor of doing it. HIV is a new thing. Yes it does lower the risk of contracting HIV if you penetrate someone that has it (without condom). What would the argument have been pre-HIV? Edited February 23, 2015 by BKKBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.8d1a71394325b508272291755f4e1850.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now