what do you think about circumcision?
People shouldn't do it at all
11.8% (207)
11.8% (207)
Parents shouldn't do it do their kids. Let them decide when they'er older.
53.2% (933)
53.2% (933)
It's the parents' choice.
17.3% (304)
17.3% (304)
I don't care.
17.3% (304)
17.3% (304)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT
 

Shynobee:

Rodrigo Girao:

Shynobee:
Since when is circumcision defined as abusive?

Well, back in the Roman Empire, it was punishable by death. Stern, but fair!

Lol?

History lesson time? Emperor Hadrian had it forbidden in all of the Roman Empire around year 130 - under the same penalty as castration and murder, which was death. This, among other reasons, led to the Bar Kokhba revolt: as the Historia Augusta registers, "The jews went to war because they were forbidden to mutilate their genitals." It thus caused the destruction of ancient Israel.

lacktheknack:
Meh. I'm circumcised, and I don't really care. "BUT YOU HAVE BETTER SEX IF YOU'RE UNCUT!" So? I can't miss what I never had. "BUT IT'S ABUSIVE AND SCARRING!" Please. I remember getting my dessert taken away with more fury and trauma than my circumcision.

Also, it's pretty easy to spot who's circumcised and who's not in this thread.

It's not that easy.

It's easy to tell whose feathers are harder to ruffle though, that's for damn sure.

I think it's terrible.

Shynobee:

Because it is the parent's right to chose something as unimportant as this for their day old child who is incapable of making this decision...

But why does the decision even need to be made? Why is this something that must be decided before the person is old enough to make the choice themselves? It's not like there's a time limit and then you lose the option to circumcise. And if it's unimportant, why wouldn't you just wait until the kid is old enough to make a decision for himself? Again, this doesn't need to be done in infancy.

Kids can't make decisions about tattoos either, but that doesn't make it good parenting to tattoo them as babies just because.

evilthecat:

rollerfox88:
less likely to get caught in the zipper.

Sorry, I had to laugh at this..

It doesn't hang 3 feet from your body. In many cases it doesn't even cover the entire glans.

Maybe yours doesnt hang 3 feet...

Seriously though, Ive had a few close calls whilst freeballing, and I dread to think what could have happened if I had so much as an extra millimetre.

ReinWeisserRitter:

Sewora:

ReinWeisserRitter:

Well, unless it's causing you physical discomfort or endangers your health, it might do you good to simply change your point of view on the matter. The vast majority of our problems, particularly with ourselves, are mostly in our heads, afterall.

Not really, given that it had fuck all to do with what you originally said. And on that note, our view of sex, largely as recreation, doesn't have a damn thing to do with "the fundamental pinnacle for life and all biological existance in the universe". That only involves putting it in there until it starts making babies, not the aesthetics of your freaking penis or your right to keep its freaking skin in tact.

And as I've already said, I don't give two damns about circumcision and think you're whining about spilled milk. If they chopped off an arm, I could see the issue, but you, at the least, appear to be complaining solely because no one asked you whether you wanted a negligible bit of skin removed. No one asked me if I wanted to be born (I'd have passed, if you're curious) either, and I don't moan about that at the slightest provocation. Some things are better left getting the fuck over.

I'm uncircumsized, and I'm fighting for mens sexual freedom and equality.

And the difference is, you can do something about being born, but if you've been permanently damage you cannot undo it, all you can do is either accept it as reality or question it.

Sure you can do something about it; you can get over it and not have it done to your own kids if you get them.

Sewora:
And you think too simply to understand what I meant with "the fundamental pinnacle for life and all biological existance in the universe".

Hahahaha.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like the problem is more you think too highly of yourself for saying such things with a straight face.

Straight fingers? Whatever, straightness.

Sewora:
The principle is simple, sex is fundamental for our existance, so all existance is dependant on sex. So everything regarding sex should be taken seriously.

I'm just going to say that's the worst logic ever and leave it at that outside of the following analogy: "We live on earth so everything on earth pertains to us."

Sound stupid? It is. But it's similar in scope to what you just said.

Sewora:
The right to choose your own sexuality is the most important aspect of modern human society.

You may be amazed to know that the vast majority of important things that happen in our lives don't have a damn thing to do with sex, then, making that completely wrong.

Sewora:
Disallowing someone the power over their own genitals is immoral and inhumane. Any homosexual will tell you that it's immoral to disallow people their choice of sexuality.

Those two statements have very little to do with each other. You're grasping hard, here.

Also, homosexuals are not the sole faction to consult on the morality of sexuality, or the denial thereof. Your implication of the contrary, intentional or otherwise, is grossly ignorant.

Sewora:
The genitals are directly connected to our sexuality,

This is true, in some cases.

Sewora:
so it's one of the most important parts of our body, physiologically, psychologically and spiritually.

While this is bollocks. An asexual person could bore you to death with why it is (and would probably be right, by and large), and that's just one group of people.

As for you, you're grouping everyone based on your own perception of the world. Sex is not important to everyone, sexuality is not a large part of everyone's life, and is especially not a large part of their spirituality or psychology. Go tell a Buddhist monk what he'd think of your thoughts on what constitutes an important part of his spirituality and psychology, and if you're lucky, he won't smile at you in mild amusement.

Put another way, sex and sexuality is as different between people as the people themselves are between each other. You are far from the sole authority on what it means to everyone, and your apparent belief otherwise is one of the very few things I've found offensive on the internet, even if mildly so.

That said, you probably have good intentions. But frankly, I believe them to be grossly misaimed and in need of re-evaluation.

To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.
Is religious freedom a human right, or are you not allowed to decide that for yourself either?
Where do we draw the line?

The right to an intact body is as important as the right to be who you are, whether it's assexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, a goth, metalhead, indian, black or white.. The list goes on.
You are proposing that just because someone feels one way about something, everyone else has to without having the option to say otherwise.
You cannot force circumcision upon adults, but you can do it to children because they don't have the power to say no, and that justifies everything you do to them in your opinion.
And you back that belief up by saying that sexuality is different between people as the people themselves are between each other.
The diversity of people is only possible because we as a species has understood the value in diversity, and the value of freedom, choice and sexuality.

To put things in better perspective; A doctor caught unecessarily amputating any bodypart on a person would be prosecuted and jailed, with the exception of the foreskin.
The surgical removal of a healthy body part from any individual without fully informed consent of the individual is a violation of medical ethics aswell.
Unethical behaviour leads to unethical decisions, and unethical decisions on any larger scale leads to pain and misery. And I shouldn't have to point out any specific historical eras or events for you to understand what that means.

Then there's the fact that circumcision is still a widely accepted procedure for many US physicians because it's too lucrative and emberrasing to stop.
It's not a matter of making money, but rather to avoid losing money.
They fear that if they refuse to honour a parent's request for a non-therapeutic circumcision, the parent will take their business elsewhere and the physician will lose potential income for the duration of his relationship with the family.

I have nothing against circumcision, but performing a permanent operation on a person who is not yet capable of making his own decisions merely because his parents' religion commands them to do so, is ridiculous.

It's mutilation. Not something that has large, negative consequences, but it's mutilation nonetheless. And the parents I've seen talk about this subject seem to be against leaving it for later, for the boy may decide not to do it...Which basically translates to "You might not want us to cut off a small part of your penis later on, so we're going to force it on you when you can't do anything about it".

If it's mandatory within your religion, wait for the boy to grow older. If he truly believes in the religion, he'll agree to do it. If he doesn't, he won't. Let him decide, don't force it upon him. The only reason this kind of sick shit is generally accepted, is because its linked to religion. Otherwise this kind of senseless mutilation would be frowned upon, seeing as it provides no real benefits.

mrblakemiller:

The-Epicly-Named-Man:
Well it's obviously the individual's choice. I don't really think there's way to explain that in a way someone on this thread already has, so I'll leave this here instead:

I will add this: I hope Hitchens has never laughed at a joke predicated on murder or rape, or hell, any death for that matter. If he has, he's an enormous hypocrite. There's no logic behind saying that what a person finds funny explains anything about their moral character. I personally have the ability to divest myself from a joke, to realize that the people getting killed or mutilated or anything else are not real people. In fact, I'll bet you anything Hitchens has laughed at one of the many "crucifixion of Jesus" jokes out there. I can't (or at least don't care enough to try to) prove it, but I think it makes great food for thought.

It's interesting that you included rape on that list, I don't know of many people who that a subject for humor. Death, hell or the crucifixion? He probably has, I know I have, but I don't believe they can be put in the same class as genital mutilation. A non-specific account of a killing, or a poke at the premise of a fictional realm or execution aren't quite as bad as the belittling of the unnecessary cutting of a real child's genitals.

rollerfox88:
Maybe yours doesnt hang 3 feet...

I set myself up for that, didn't I..

Oh well, in case it wasn't obvious I meant the foreskin. There's really not very much of it at all.

Also, assuming you did get your junk it caught in a zipper (oddly, it doesn't seem to be an everyday occurance), it would hurt significantly less and do significantly less damage to have your foreskin caught than the glans itself. That's part of why we have a foreskin, it protects a very sensitive part of the body from uncomfortable contact.

My point is always that there's no real benefit here. There's no huge loss for most people either, and if as an adult you find you're getting your foreskin caught in your zipper, by all means get it removed. Adult circumcision is not difficult nowadays (in many ways its a lot safer because the margin for error is greater), the point is assuming you have the right to approve irreversible cosmetic procedures for an infant who cannot consent to it.

You might want to give your child a bitchin' tattoo of you riding a motorcycle with wings and playing an electric guitar whilst high fiving Jesus, but if you did so I don't think people would be very sensitive.

"You're circumsized? How does it feel to be mutilated?"
"How about I mutilate your face with my fist?"

A conversation with a friend. When he started talking again, I playfully jabbed him in the face.

I should only be done for medical reasons. If it's for any other reason, it should only be done with the consent of the boy. Any other scenario is out of the question.

Remeber people, it's not about "But it doesn't hurt at all" or "But it has no long term negative side effects". It's about principle.

I'll post what I think: I'm circumcised but it wasn't my choice; my parents forced it on me when I was a child. Why? Because I had complications when I tried to urinate as a baby. So it wasn't because of religious purposes or because my parents wanted to do it, it's because my kidneys were filling with urine and it was getting really bad.

I don't agree with it, but calling it mutilation I think is going too far. Ultimately, if a parent genuinely thinks that's what's best for their kid, I don't really care.

Okay... I'm going to simply ignore the replies to my comment that said: "Your personal opinion is wrong!" ;)

@ FallenMessiah88:
Then again, shouldn't everything be the individual's choice? I must agree to your point of view, but do keep in mind that alot of the people who demand that the kid should be able to decide might enforce something else upon him(/her) - like their way of life, religion, political views or even a job.

All I can say is that I'm happy with my circumcised penis; my parents were forced to decide for me because of a medical condition that needed the foreskin to be removed and I have no memory to this event or the following days/weeks of healing at all. It happened in a hospital, performed by professionals.
Now, I can see lots of advantages compared to having a foreskin. With only one little disadvantage: Lubrication for masturbation! But I just use lube and some "adult men's toy", or the best lubricant in nature: SPIT! Sex isn't affected at all, as the woman produces lube naturally and anal sex requires the use of lube anyways.

Oh, and how the hell does a not circumcised penis produce lube for having sex?! THAT MAKES NO SENSE AND TINGLES INSIDE MY HEAD! Whoever posted that comment on the past 3 pages should clearly get themselves examined *yuck*

Don´t know if this has been posted yet, since this is a +20 thread:
But here is a canadian website dedicated towards foreskin awareness:
http://can-fap.net/ (no joke)

And I dare every single one who´s Pro-Circumsition to watch the video.
I double dare ya!

Sellfish:
Okay... I'm going to simply ignore the replies to my comment that said: "Your personal opinion is wrong!" ;)

@ FallenMessiah88:
Then again, shouldn't everything be the individual's choice? I must agree to your point of view, but do keep in mind that alot of the people who demand that the kid should be able to decide might enforce something else upon him(/her) - like their way of life, religion, political views or even a job.

All I can say is that I'm happy with my circumcised penis; my parents were forced to decide for me because of a medical condition that needed the foreskin to be removed and I have no memory to this event or the following days/weeks of healing at all. It happened in a hospital, performed by professionals.
Now, I can see lots of advantages compared to having a foreskin. With only one little disadvantage: Lubrication for masturbation! But I just use lube and some "adult men's toy", or the best lubricant in nature: SPIT! Sex isn't affected at all, as the woman produces lube naturally and anal sex required the use of lube anyways.

Oh, and how the hell does a not circumcised penis produce lube for having sex?! THAT MAKES NO SENSE AND TINGLES INSIDE MY HEAD! Whoever posted that comment on the past 3 pages should clearly get themselves examined *yuck*

The inside of the foreskin is a muceous membrane, and is designed to be retracted and returned during masturbation or sex. It also creates lubricant and contains the precum more effectively and disperses it when necessary rather than continuously. It's an ingenious little piece of the penis that makes sure that little friction occurs during sex.
The mechanic is simple, and can be compared to a pneumatic piston. The outside remains more or less stationary whilst retaining the motion and effect on the inside.
That's not saying that the woman won't feel it, because way wrong.

Grab your arm with your right hand, and rub it intensly. What's going to happen? You're going to cause friction due to the first law of thermodynamics. How would you evolutionary go about to change that from happening?
Well here's the punchline. Muceous membranes are easier lubricated and causes less friction but is in exchange much more fragile. But you can't make the skin of your arms into muceous membranes now can you? External influences would make it severly dangerous unless protected.
So what did evolution do? The foreskin. It contains the muceous membrane of the penis in a very clever way that allows it to retract to reveal and return to protect.
But that also causes another effect, again related to the first law of thermodynamics, less transfer of energy causes less friction. So instead of the skin rubbing against the female muceous membrane and risking damage through friction, the foreskin of the penis reduces frictional movement but retains enough motion to allow maximum amount of sensation with a minimum amount of energy transfer.

It's quite clever. Most of the things in and on our bodies that we actively use are very well designed for their respective purposes. Ranging from the complexity of the eye, to the method of transporting air to the brain. All the way down to the most effective way to self-replicate.

And this is something that the ancient hebrews, christians and muslims knew about. That is why old circumcision only refers to the removal of the tip of the foreskin, not the entire muceous membrane.
Even back then people were smarter than we are today.
The main reason it stopped being performed like that and the whole foreskin was removed instead, was a moronic dream about getting boys to stop performing onanism both privately and publicly.
When the foreskin separates from the glans at young age before the foreskin has been retracted for the first time and ceases to protect the glans at fulltime, it can cause some minor irritation and itching, so the boy will naturally try to rub or scratch his penis in discomfort. This was considered public masturbation and a way for boys to explore their own bodies and figure out onanism. So when boys reached that point in life, the foreskin was fully removed in a pathetic attempt to reduce masturbation to an absolute zero.
But if history has shown us anything, it's that we're very good at adapting to new things.

Steambroom:
Don´t know if this has been posted yet, since this is a +20 thread:
But here is a canadian website dedicated towards foreskin awareness:
www.can-fap.net (no joke)

And I dare every single one who´s Pro-Circumsition to watch the video.
I double dare ya!

I watched the video on the mainpage, and I'm shocked by the cruelty and inhumanity of the act. It's horrible to even have to endure hearing the helpless cries of the child as his genitals are being torn asunder and cut into...

Sewora:

That is why old circumcision only refers to the removal of the tip of the foreskin, not the entire muceous membrane. ... The main reason it stopped being performed like that and the whole foreskin was removed instead, was a moronic dream about getting boys to stop performing onanism both privately and publicly.

Actually, that's the reason why it became widespread in victorian England and the US. But the thing here is something else.

You see, for Romans, even the tamer circumcision was aberrant. And since nudity was then part of certain social activities - such as public baths and athletic games - jews stood out, to their disgust and scoff. Thus, hellenized jews sought foreskin stretching to recover an intact appearance. Orthodox rabbis then adopted the more radical cut to make it harder for their flock to mix with gentiles and possibly walk away from their old culture for good.

So that's the truth: circumcision is all about domination and xenophobia.

Sewora:
To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.

You just made that up, or you've conducted some rather poor research.

There may be some Buddhists willing to tell you such things through their own personal beliefs (because religion is inevitably tainted by some peoples' opinions, given that it is a large part of some peoples' lives, and people often feel the need to justify the things they oppose or do not oppose, so what better way than to claim it's the will of your way of life), but in its core beliefs, Buddhism's way is to accept everyone, that everyone can achieve enlightenment and Nirvana, and that everyone is already destined to be there, in fact, one day. It is among the last religions that would condemn you for something that happened to your body without consent, no matter its scope, and it does not turn away those who wish to learn their ways and join their ranks. That said, some factions probably discourage circumcision, and I'm pretty sure it's not the default practice, but that doesn't mean you're considered tainted for having it done.

Don't bullshit people in an attempt to win an argument, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sewora:
Is religious freedom a human right, or are you not allowed to decide that for yourself either? Where do we draw the line?

You can decide whatever the hell you want to believe, and as I've demonstrated above, chances are it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the state of your penis. I'd go so far as to say those that would condemn such a thing are not something that is worth believing in, though, not that anyone asked me.

Sewora:
The right to an intact body is as important as the right to be who you are, whether it's assexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, a goth, metalhead, indian, black or white.. The list goes on.

Your appearance is ephemeral and fleeting; your body has absolutely no chance of being in tact throughout your life. You will be irrevocably changed many times over the course of your existence, and most of those changes will be completely without your consent.

Who you are and who you will become endure throughout your life, though. Aspects will change, develop, or be outgrown, but ultimately who you are at your core is the only thing about you that will remain the same in your life. Thus it and your body, while related, are nowhere near comparable in importance.

Sewora:
You are proposing that just because someone feels one way about something, everyone else has to without having the option to say otherwise.

Did no such thing. My stance from the beginning was that there are more important things to direct your attention to. It doesn't have to be unimportant to you, but what one has no control over is ultimately something one's worry is wasted on; all we can do is focus on what we can shape ourselves, and endeavor to make the right decision on those matters in our own eyes, hopefully without harming others.

Sewora:
You cannot force circumcision upon adults,

You can force anything on anyone, with the right approach.

Sewora:
but you can do it to children because they don't have the power to say no, and that justifies everything you do to them in your opinion.

Never said anything of the sort, nor do I believe it. Also, not everything we consent to is what's best for us, but I'll touch on that later.

Sewora:
And you back that belief up by saying that sexuality is different between people as the people themselves are between each other.

You have a fondness for drawing parallels between things that have remarkable little relation.

Sewora:
The diversity of people is only possible because we as a species has understood the value in diversity, and the value of freedom, choice and sexuality.

This is so unbelievably wrong it hurts. Are you seriously claiming that the reason diversity exists is because we've accepted it does? Seriously?

Shit, some personality traits and cultural phenomenon are born because of a lack of acceptance from others.

Sewora:
The surgical removal of a healthy body part from any individual without fully informed consent of the individual is a violation of medical ethics aswell.
Unethical behaviour leads to unethical decisions, and unethical decisions on any larger scale leads to pain and misery. And I shouldn't have to point out any specific historical eras or events for you to understand what that means.

So if I may draw a conclusion, what you're saying is that anything done to a person without their explicit consent is a unethical.

It may surprise you, then, that a lot of what people do to others without their consent is for the sake of their well-being, or their perceived well-being; I'm going to find it hard to believe that if you got in a car accident and would have bled to death without intervention, but weren't able to state your opinion on the matter, you'd criticize the parties responsible for attempting to save your life. Not comparable in scope, of course, but comparable in essence.

This thought process is what a lot of parents go down when making a child's decisions for them, because the kid can't speak on their approval of the matter. Despite your incredible vehemence on the matter, circumcision isn't a big deal to most people, and most parents do it in a perceived best interest for their child, and nine times out of ten (if that few in cases) the person isn't affected by it one way or the other. It may have even ended up being - gasp and alarm - for their own good, whether you like it or not.

On that note, let me present a different perspective: Let's suppose some people are indeed better off for having their junk "mutilated", as so many of you are fond of saying. Let's say that some people who haven't had the procedure would also be better off if they did. Most of them aren't going to get it done anyway. Why? Because they've grown up with the thing as they know it. People tend to be reluctant to permanently change themselves, even for their own good, especially when that change involves a sharp metal object slicing their flesh. We tend to get used to the status quo, to being uncomfortable because it's what we know.

Now, I've no argument for people having their own say in what happens to themselves, but what if they would have been better off if their say on the matter was ignored? Is it wrong then? What's more, are you going to claim that the people who have been wronged by this procedure (in reality or entirely in their minds) outnumber those that benefited from it, or that the latter's opinion is inferior because it was without their consent?

Sewora:
Then there's the fact that circumcision is still a widely accepted procedure for many US physicians because it's too lucrative and emberrasing to stop.
It's not a matter of making money, but rather to avoid losing money.
They fear that if they refuse to honour a parent's request for a non-therapeutic circumcision, the parent will take their business elsewhere and the physician will lose potential income for the duration of his relationship with the family.

I could write a book on my annoyance with how many things are done to us in a doctor's office solely to support the business model that is American medical, but that's a gripe for another discussion.

If a person wants to be circumcised when they're old enough to decide for themselves, cool.

If they don't want to be circumcised but their parents already had it done to them, it's not exactly like that can glue it back on.

ravensheart18:

I'd suggest a few things to you...

1) Keep in mind you don't need a vice grip. Your vagina isn't a vice, neither is your mouth, your hand shouldn't be either, your hand should be sliding. The only way to get a burn would be vice grip + crazy speed.
2) If you are up to it, more effective than lube because of the sexuality of it, a couple seconds in your mouth first (and again if this is an extended session of play) and you will have a very happy man on your hand. BJ/HJ combinations beat out either on their own to many guys.
3) Tell him you want to masterbate for him while he masterbates for you. DO NOT tell him the real reason, tell him the idea of watching him turns you on. Then you can see what he likes first hand. Pay attention to what he does and you will have a good idea where to start for him.
4) Tell him it turns you on to hear what he likes, encourage him to tell you while you are doing it. (faster, slower, stop, don't stop, play with my balls, etc)

You know, the funny thing is that I really wasn't going very fast, nor was I gripping like crazy. I'm inexperienced, I was cautious in general about what I was doing. He didn't even notice the burn at the time - it was somewhat later that it, um, became apparent. I think a lot of it may actually have been to do with the fact that his skin is very sensitive. (He also bruises like a peach. XD) But yup, I've discovered since that hand + mouth seems to be the way to go.

As for recommendations 3 and 4, those are things that I've been thinking about trying anyway, so I'll definitely work on making it happen. Thanks for the suggestions!

kurupt87:
Also, circumcised guys require daily blowjobs, occasional anal and a ffm threesome every month. Tell all your friends and get them to pass it on too. Between us we shall save the circumcised Briton!

Nice try. :P

Everyone who is pro circumcision. Watch a video of an infant undergoing circumcision. Watch the body language and listen to the cries. These are the only forms of language infants have. And we've been listening and watching them for thousands of years to understand what differentiates a cry for help and a cry for attention.
Notice the extreme reaction to pain caused by the hypersensitivity that infants have. The foreskin is firmly attached to the glans to protect it, but it gets torn asunder and exposes the glans to oxygen and other chemicals in the air that physically hurts due to the extreme sensitivity of that particular part of the body.
Then the foreskin is cut off, one of the most sensitive areas of the penis.
Infants hypersensitivity to taste and touch is so great that anasthetics doesn't even help.

Any parent with any respect or care for his or her child would never, ever let their child undergo this kind of treatment by people that are supposed to 'Do no harm'.

Also note the neurogenic shock the babies enter afterwards due to the stress and pain. This is commonly misinterpreted as the child sleeping peacefully, but it's actually a reaction to the pain of the procedure.

It is torture, by all definitions it is torture. It's torture just to hear their cries for help and being unable to aid them.
Neither mutilation or torture is legal in the modern world, so why are you doing this to the greatest thing that'll ever happen to you, your child. Your own blood and flesh.

go to the part about the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page3.htm

Nope, no enlightenment here. You're just spreading misinformation.

Claims that circumcision somehow prevents AIDS always come from flawed, biased studies. Real life numbers somehow show no such protection. Also, usually there is no mention of the negative side effects, or the ethics of performing an irreversible body modification on non-consenting infants. And even in the most wildly optimistic scenarios, it is very far from the protection you'd get with condoms. How about the price? A single circumcision costs about as much as a lifetime supply of condoms.

Circumcision does NO good, that's a fact.

poodlenoodles:
*sigh* prepare to be enlightened.
http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/circumcision.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page3.htm

now apologize for making me look that stuff up

Sure if you are planning on having unprotected analsex with monkeys and people, it might be useful.

But we have condoms today, so having a few percent less chance of contracting a disease won't make any difference.
In scandinavia a large portion of the population are in fact immune to HIV. We cannot by any means be infected by HIV. But that doesn't mean we all have unprotected sex because statistics mean nothing to an individual. You can still be part of that percentage that isn't immune to HIV.

It all boils down to how intelligent you are.

Beside, studies show that being circumsized and uncircumsized both are protective against STD's.
It's called pseudosience. When science is manufactured or misinterpreted to force the results that you personally want to protect a particular subject.

HIV is significantly more common in the US than it is in say... Sweden. And we're all uncircumsized. Please explain.

Sewora:
[To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.

I've never heard that before. What's the logic of that? If you lost a fingertip to an accident would you also be prohibitted?

I think it is an horrible thing to do your son. There is no good reson for doing it and no, relgion is not a good argument.

ravensheart18:

Sewora:
[To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.

I've never heard that before. What's the logic of that? If you lost a fingertip to an accident would you also be prohibitted?

The Buddhists believe in the sanctity of the body. Being intact is an important aspect of being enlightened.
The foreskin is even mentioned repeatedly in their scriptures.

Sewora:

ravensheart18:

Sewora:
[To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.

I've never heard that before. What's the logic of that? If you lost a fingertip to an accident would you also be prohibitted?

The Buddhists believe in the sanctity of the body. Being intact is an important aspect of being enlightened.
The foreskin is even mentioned repeatedly in their scriptures.

Then repeating the question, what happens if you are missing a fingertip? Can you then not join?

What happens if a body part is lost after you become a buddhist, are you effectively kicked out?

Uh... why does everyone assume that every circumcision is performed without anesthetics? Every surgery should be performed while you are asleep and drugged as much as possible, and every surgery looks f*cking gross to a person not into medical science.
If performed right it's no different than getting your tonsils removed.

Again, leave religion the hell out of this o0 Who cares what some Christians, Jews or Buddhists think of the human body? Science is what counts, SCIENCE! Not superstitious belief.
Why do people try to bring some kind of religion into discussions, meh >.>

Oh, and let me give you another reason for circumcision: Visual appeal!
Not any different than an inside or outside navel/bellybutton.

Ive never really thought about it, Ive always been circumcised.
You guys are hurting my dicks feelings......my dick feels cold.....and naked.....
Apologize by giving it a hug.

Hell. They do it for religious reasons. That's enough for me to grab the torch and pitchfork.

Sellfish:
Uh... why does everyone assume that every circumcision is performed without anesthetics?

Infant circumcision usually is.

Sellfish:
Oh, and let me give you another reason for circumcision: Visual appeal!

Mind you, in the classical standards of beauty, circumcision is one of the most abominable things you can do to the human body.

CODE-D:
You guys are hurting my dicks feelings......my dick feels cold.....and naked.....

Look into 'foreskin restoration', it's not as good as the real thing but it will fix that problem.

ravensheart18:

Then repeating the question, what happens if you are missing a fingertip? Can you then not join?

What happens if a body part is lost after you become a buddhist, are you effectively kicked out?

Most sects of Buddhism (maybe there are like 1-2 exceptions, but I doubt even that) wouldn't turn someone away if they were missing part of their body. It's more a "don't go cutting stuff off" thing for them.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here