Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It aint broke.

You're right.

He's talking about circumcision. There is no need for it (it ain't broke), so don't cut it (don't fix it)...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well, I don't have anything to measure it against, but it's sensitive enough, if you don't have anything to measure it against you don't know what you're missing.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
well then we're back to the arguement over subtle differences in sensation.

Wow, now it's reducing sensation being a bad thing, it's a subtle difference.

And when I said procreation, I didn't mean you couldn't have children. I meant that some people will, in later life, find it hard to orgasm. If circumcision reduces sensitivity, then it will make it even harder for them to orgasm. Anything that reduces your abiolity to ejaculate also reduces your ability to have children, since you must ejaculate to have children. The degree to which is is is small, i grant you, but that, along with the reduced sensitivity, stop circumcision being harmless. However small their effect is, it is an effect. Thus circumcision could be said to cause limited harm, but not to be harmless.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Unless the Doc just like totally slips and takes a hard right.

Which is still possible, albeit unlikely.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
One interesting thing to consider, when someone gets a sex change operation, they cut you unit in half and shove it up inside you and it becomes a vagina.

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But they consented, as an adult. A parent forcing a child to undergo a sex change would be wrong, to me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



It aint broke. The current system is fine. Folks here want to impose the state over the family, a radical "fix". In the case I know where it was tried, in the USSR, it created great unhappiness.

There's some confusion here. You're talking about governments, while I'm talking about penises. The two are often confused.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Most of them have been in person but one did involve an online poll, with people from Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK

I still got the same results.

Even if you were right I'd still feel cheated. If I'm with a girl who prefers mutilated genitals then I would want to be able to demonstrate my affection and devotion to her by electing myself to let a docter carve parts of my body away to please her. If someone did it to me as an infant I'm cheated out of such a gesture.

And again, why wouldn't the foreskin have disappeared from humanity by now if it's presence made men less sexually attractive to women? Why wouldn't women be getting their children circumcised all over the world especially in countires like Germany where the women have managed to force men to urinate sitting down. You would think that they would be geting their sons circumcised their if they thought it was intrinsically preferable.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
not having been the other way since i was 8 days old, i cant really say from personal experience Undoubtedly less consequences to personal pleasure than some men who were raised to think sex is sinful, yet no one proposes banning that IIUC recent studies suggest no loss of pleasure at all. Yet with essentially anecdotal evidence of a subtle change, you would impose the state over the rights of parents.

I would say with any evidence that it becomes the right of the person to choose, not their parents, or the states. They choose themselves, and until they can, nothing happens.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue



Wow, now it's reducing sensation being a bad thing, it's a subtle difference.

And when I said procreation, I didn't mean you couldn't have children. I meant that some people will, in later life, find it hard to orgasm. If circumcision reduces sensitivity,

unproven, as opposed to significant studies for the hygiene benefits.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its MUTILATION AND VIOLATION BECAUSE it takes away funtionality.

So if you only cut a little bit of the clit off, so they could still have functionality, but reduced sexual pleasure, that would be fine?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
There's some confusion here. You're talking about governments, while I'm talking about penises. The two are often confused.

Brilliant!

[Geronimo]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Geronimo


This is what I find frightening. For you if someone castrated a kid it's sad because now the kid will have to adopt to have children. For me it's sad because this poor kid has been mutilated and violated and will have to live with it forever. [/QUOTE

Its MUTILATION AND VIOLATION BECAUSE it takes away funtionality.

er, in my country parents have their little girls ears pierced at age 3. Not something I would do, but to describe it has as mutilation and violation would be seen as most as a sign of someone who needs to chill a bit.

How long will I have to chill before I get my foreskin back?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

I would say with any evidence that it becomes the right of the person to choose, not their parents, or the states. They choose themselves, and until they can, nothing happens.

How do you prevent anything from happening, if not by having the state deny the parents choice, as happened in the USSR?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
unproven, as opposed to significant studies for the hygiene benefits.

So when you and whaleboy claimed it, it was legitimate, but now it's bad thing, it's unproven? And how recent were the studies on hygiene benefits. I seem to remember a study that as long as people wash it frequently, neither has a problem, and there's no difference.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

So if you only cut a little bit of the clit off, so they could still have functionality, but reduced sexual pleasure, that would be fine?

If the effects were equivalent to male circumcision, IE no proven loss of functionality, then that would be fine, yes.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How do you prevent anything from happening, if not by having the state deny the parents choice, as happened in the USSR?

I don't see it as the parents choice in the first place. I see it as the person's choice. Their own body.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


How do you prevent anything from happening, if not by having the state deny the parents choice, as happened in the USSR?

"Braveheart" (re-scripted by LOTM).

"I demand my FREEDOM (to have somebody else make permanent decisions about me without consultation)!!!!"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


How long will I have to chill before I get my foreskin back?

Oh dear, Im sorry, is that whats bugging you?


I suggest we drop this discussion, its not going to resolve anything.