Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

The vast majority of people do not need to be circumcised as an adult. In fact, it's extremely rare to do that now, there are alternate treatments that don't even involve cutting -- just creams (I speak from personal experience -- don't ask). 10 years ago they'd require circumcision, now you just apply cream for a month and voila...no slicing and dicing.

My friend got circumsized as an adult cause hes a Jew. He want as an infant, cause of the repressive circumstances in the Soviet Union, were he grew up.

[MikeH]

I'm really glad no-one chopped my foreskin off, ****ing without one must be more complicated.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I hear France is banning circumcised penises in schools

Only public display of them will be banned

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My friend got circumsized as an adult cause hes a Jew. He want as an infant, cause of the repressive circumstances in the Soviet Union, were he grew up.

As I said, circumcision should only be used as a punishment for being religious.

[Pekka]

I dont' think you should cut your kid penis up, just because.. it supposedly lowers the chance of STD, because how about just using a condom anyway, it's no deterrent, and about hygiene, well I wash up my penis every day and it's clean. So if you're a lazy bastard, then yeah, but since you are not, then it doesn't matter.

It also protects your penis some.

There is an extra feeling to it, so you feel more. Now the men with cut penis say they can last longer, so what do I care, I last long too, 10 minuets if I have to. AND I feel more. How's them apples?

I don't need lube to masturbate, it's cheaper and better.

Better looking, says who? Couple of stuck up girls who listen to britney spears? Hey, I have never had complaints either. Furthermore, I can always find a group of girls to say the exact opposite. SO it's not a fact.

Basically, I feel people should be able to decide for themselves. If they want to have it cut, they should be able, but it should also be THEIR decision.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

Yes, when I think it's morally wrong. Chopping a part of a child off is wrong, IMHO, since that child may not share the view that it is better. I believe it is a person's choice, not their parents.

The question here is whether the state has a right to intervene "on the childs behalf" In my case that would have ended up being to my personal detriment, and i cant help but think that theres something wrong with a moral calculus that is flagrantly wrong in the my own case.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Sue his parents? Like I said, whichever way you go you eliminate an option.

Actually it doesn't. If you chop it off, it can't grow back. if you don't chop it off, it can be done later, if that person wants it.

[Whoha]

I think this is something the kid should decide.

[Whaleboy]

Circumcision is a useless activity with higher risks than potential benefits. And they look worse after. They only look 'better' to people because that's what they're used to seeing. The only difference in an erect penis, is the circumcised penis has an ugly ring-scar, while the uncircumcised doesn't (and the circumcised guy feels less and has more friction).

Ummm, ring scar? I had mine done as an infant so I cant speak for your BF but I have no ring scar.

I am prepared to concede that being circumsized means you require more "care" in anal sex, though apparently ripped foreskins are as painful as they are amusing to me, in "normal" sex all is good.

Circumcision is a useless activity with higher risks than potential benefits

Done as an infant, remind me of the risks.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I, personally, have never encountered such an individual, in my personal life or through knowing people at the three (two liberal, one reform, not in that order) synagogues that my family have been members of.



On the contrary, assuming the mother consented I would want my son circumsized. No matter those who had the op done later, every guy I've known that had it done as an infant was proud of the fact. As for unconsenting kids, that'll only work with an argument of abuse, which this is not, see my above post.

Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ummm, ring scar? I had mine done as an infant so I cant speak for your BF but I have no ring scar.

Everyone does. I've seen a lot of cocks, mister. Porn and otherwise.

You may just be used to it?

Done as an infant, remind me of the risks.

Infection is a high risk. You're cutting off skin in an area that's ripe with bacteria...think about it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

Actually it doesn't. If you chop it off, it can't grow back. if you don't chop it off, it can be done later, if that person wants it.

Once again, you can only do so in a more painful and risky procedure than infant circumcision. The option youve eliminated is to be circumsized as an infant when its easy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The question here is whether the state has a right to intervene "on the childs behalf" In my case that would have ended up being to my personal detriment, and i cant help but think that theres something wrong with a moral calculus that is flagrantly wrong in the my own case.

IMHO, in cases where one person wants to chop bits off another, it's down to that person. Not their parents. With the exception of medical necessity, where you'd need a DNR or somesuch for them not to do it. You can choose to have it done later. You cannot choose to have it undone.

If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, the period when I think it's morally wrong, due to it being forced upon them. Chopping a part of a child off is wrong, IMHO, since that child may not share the view that it is better. I believe it is a person's choice, not their parents. The same as removing your appendix at birth. Unless there's a medical necessity, it should be the choice of the person themself. There are no long term medical problems with branding either, but I'd still class it as abuse unless it was the choice of that person.

Morally wrong? Are you smoking something?

We clearly have differing definitions of abuse. It's the erroneous use of someone or something. The notion of erroneous is a question of the beholder, unless pragmatically mitigating circumstances apply, as in the case of female circumcision whereby GBH is the result.