How do you feel about circumcision?

[artanis_neravar]

It doesn't which is exactly the point, you are making a big deal about something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. It doesn't hurt the child, and it has no adverse negative effects at all

Really? Your response is to metaphorically plug your ears and yell "LALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALALA"?

Whatever, I guess. I'm surprised a 9-year old would be on The Escapist though.

Really? Your response is to start lobbing insults? You haven't shown me anything to to prove me wrong, why should I just believe you?

 

[DazBurger]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

So by your logic, tattooing a baby is perfectly okay?
Because it can't remember the pain and it heals in days?

-snip
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The foreskin protects the "head", keeping it sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head hardens and becomes much less sensitive.

So it could be compared to numbing down a baby girls clit.


But hey... Its all okay! Because it looks better! And really suits the toddlers brand new tattoo!

It does NOT make the head less sensitive! Where are you getting this from? If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

Where I get this from?.. SCIENCE!

Besides, if the great foreskin burglar stole mine tomorrow, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem...

I just finished playing Old World Blues.... if you have played it, you will know why I find it so funny that you say... SCIENCE!

Either way, SCIENCE! can say what it wants all day, but it matters little to me when my own body disputes what you are saying. If my arm was red, but SCIENCE! said it was blue, does that mean I should believe its blue even though I know different?

Have you tried to be uncircumcised recently?

No?

I prefer to believe in SCIENCE!, then.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

So by your logic, tattooing a baby is perfectly okay?
Because it can't remember the pain and it heals in days?

-snip
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The foreskin protects the "head", keeping it sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head hardens and becomes much less sensitive.

So it could be compared to numbing down a baby girls clit.


But hey... Its all okay! Because it looks better! And really suits the toddlers brand new tattoo!

It does NOT make the head less sensitive! Where are you getting this from? If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

Where I get this from?.. SCIENCE!

Besides, if the great foreskin burglar stole mine tomorrow, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem...

I just finished playing Old World Blues.... if you have played it, you will know why I find it so funny that you say... SCIENCE!

Either way, SCIENCE! can say what it wants all day, but it matters little to me when my own body disputes what you are saying. If my arm was red, but SCIENCE! said it was blue, does that mean I should believe its blue even though I know different?

Have you tried to be uncircumcised recently?

No?

I prefer to believe in SCIENCE!, then.

Short of pulling skin over it while I'm not aroused and playing peek a boo, I'm not quite sure how I would do this. Should I try tape? Can SCIENCE! tell me?

Look, I am going to stick with what my body tells me. You do what makes you happy, whether its SCIENCE! or your own junk.

 

[DazBurger]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

So by your logic, tattooing a baby is perfectly okay?
Because it can't remember the pain and it heals in days?

-snip
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The foreskin protects the "head", keeping it sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head hardens and becomes much less sensitive.

So it could be compared to numbing down a baby girls clit.


But hey... Its all okay! Because it looks better! And really suits the toddlers brand new tattoo!

It does NOT make the head less sensitive! Where are you getting this from? If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

Where I get this from?.. SCIENCE!

Besides, if the great foreskin burglar stole mine tomorrow, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem...

I just finished playing Old World Blues.... if you have played it, you will know why I find it so funny that you say... SCIENCE!

Either way, SCIENCE! can say what it wants all day, but it matters little to me when my own body disputes what you are saying. If my arm was red, but SCIENCE! said it was blue, does that mean I should believe its blue even though I know different?

Have you tried to be uncircumcised recently?

No?

I prefer to believe in SCIENCE!, then.

Short of pulling skin over it while I'm not aroused and playing peek a boo, I'm not quite sure how I would do this. Should I try tape? Can SCIENCE! tell me?

Look, I am going to stick with what my body tells me. You do what makes you happy, whether its SCIENCE! or your own junk.

Of course SCIENCE! can tell you!
SCIENCE! can tell you everything! It can even prove and disapprove (Not necessarily in that order) the existence of God, Budda, Duct Tape and 42. (Also not necessarily in that order)

 

[Riff Moonraker]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

So by your logic, tattooing a baby is perfectly okay?
Because it can't remember the pain and it heals in days?

-snip
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The foreskin protects the "head", keeping it sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head hardens and becomes much less sensitive.

So it could be compared to numbing down a baby girls clit.


But hey... Its all okay! Because it looks better! And really suits the toddlers brand new tattoo!

It does NOT make the head less sensitive! Where are you getting this from? If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

Where I get this from?.. SCIENCE!

Besides, if the great foreskin burglar stole mine tomorrow, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem...

I just finished playing Old World Blues.... if you have played it, you will know why I find it so funny that you say... SCIENCE!

Either way, SCIENCE! can say what it wants all day, but it matters little to me when my own body disputes what you are saying. If my arm was red, but SCIENCE! said it was blue, does that mean I should believe its blue even though I know different?

Have you tried to be uncircumcised recently?

No?

I prefer to believe in SCIENCE!, then.

Short of pulling skin over it while I'm not aroused and playing peek a boo, I'm not quite sure how I would do this. Should I try tape? Can SCIENCE! tell me?

Look, I am going to stick with what my body tells me. You do what makes you happy, whether its SCIENCE! or your own junk.

Of course SCIENCE! can tell you!
SCIENCE! can tell you everything! It can even prove and disapprove (Not necessarily in that order) the existence of God, Budda, Duct Tape and 42. (Also not necessarily in that order)

Lol, ok, look.... you REALLY need to go play Old World Blues (Fallout New Vegas DLC) after this. I think you would really get a kick out of it. XD

 

[Sentox6]

Really? Your response is to start lobbing insults? You haven't shown me anything to to prove me wrong, why should I just believe you?

Others have already linked sources in this thread. You did read through it before posting, right?

 

[artanis_neravar]

Really? Your response is to start lobbing insults? You haven't shown me anything to to prove me wrong, why should I just believe you?

Others have already linked sources in this thread. You did read through it before posting, right?

Nope, but I'm familiar with the research and my own personal experience, I can still say there is nothing wrong with it

 

[DazBurger]

There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.

Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?

So by your logic, tattooing a baby is perfectly okay?
Because it can't remember the pain and it heals in days?

-snip
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The foreskin protects the "head", keeping it sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head hardens and becomes much less sensitive.

So it could be compared to numbing down a baby girls clit.


But hey... Its all okay! Because it looks better! And really suits the toddlers brand new tattoo!

It does NOT make the head less sensitive! Where are you getting this from? If mine were any more sensitive, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem. So, I fail to see the logic in that comment.

Where I get this from?.. SCIENCE!

Besides, if the great foreskin burglar stole mine tomorrow, walking down the street in a pair of jeans would be a serious problem...

I just finished playing Old World Blues.... if you have played it, you will know why I find it so funny that you say... SCIENCE!

Either way, SCIENCE! can say what it wants all day, but it matters little to me when my own body disputes what you are saying. If my arm was red, but SCIENCE! said it was blue, does that mean I should believe its blue even though I know different?

Have you tried to be uncircumcised recently?

No?

I prefer to believe in SCIENCE!, then.

Short of pulling skin over it while I'm not aroused and playing peek a boo, I'm not quite sure how I would do this. Should I try tape? Can SCIENCE! tell me?

Look, I am going to stick with what my body tells me. You do what makes you happy, whether its SCIENCE! or your own junk.

Of course SCIENCE! can tell you!
SCIENCE! can tell you everything! It can even prove and disapprove (Not necessarily in that order) the existence of God, Budda, Duct Tape and 42. (Also not necessarily in that order)

Lol, ok, look.... you REALLY need to go play Old World Blues (Fallout New Vegas DLC) after this. I think you would really get a kick out of it. XD

Butbut... I haven't got the time! I'v got SCIENCE! to do!.. And noobs to pwn... And forums to troll :,(

 

[NoeL]

Nope, but I'm familiar with the research and my own personal experience, I can still say there is nothing wrong with it

How can you say there's nothing wrong with it when people have made dozens of posts explicitly stating what's wrong with it?

 

[artanis_neravar]

Nope, but I'm familiar with the research and my own personal experience, I can still say there is nothing wrong with it

How can you say there's nothing wrong with it when people have made dozens of posts explicitly stating what's wrong with it?

Because I have first hand experience, along with the majority of my friends, and never, not once, have any of us suffered any kind of negative side effects, at all.

 

[NoeL]

Nope, but I'm familiar with the research and my own personal experience, I can still say there is nothing wrong with it

How can you say there's nothing wrong with it when people have made dozens of posts explicitly stating what's wrong with it?

Because I have first hand experience, along with the majority of my friends, and never, not once, have any of us suffered any kind of negative side effects, at all.

I don't think you're getting why it's such a big deal. It's not that being circumcised has overtly detrimental side-effects (I too am circumcised yet have no "performance" issues), it's that:

a) It does create a desensitised penis (obviously if you were circumcised as an infant you wouldn't be able to say to what degree it's affected you personally. Your "first-hand experience" means squat - all it says is you've retained sufficient sensitivity. It gives no insight into how much sensitivity you may have lost).
b) It loses mechanical function, as the foreskin serves to reduce friction during intercourse/masturbation, among other things.
c) Like all surgeries there are risks, and the child may end up with botched penis all because of a cosmetic surgery.
d) This is the biggie - the child's right to an intact body is permanently and unnecessarily violated.

Imagine if you will a parent that wanted to cut the earlobes off their child. There wouldn't be any side affects (beyond aesthetics) - the child would still be able to hear just fine. Is that reason (i.e. lack of detrimental effects) justification enough to allow the parent to mutilate the child however they see fit? Should a parent be allowed to remove the earlobes, or tattoo, or pierce their child for no good reason? Don't you think people should have the right to NOT be mutilated for no reason? Isn't that reason alone to outlaw elective circumcision regardless of whether or not there are "negative side effects"?

 

[artanis_neravar]

Nope, but I'm familiar with the research and my own personal experience, I can still say there is nothing wrong with it

How can you say there's nothing wrong with it when people have made dozens of posts explicitly stating what's wrong with it?

Because I have first hand experience, along with the majority of my friends, and never, not once, have any of us suffered any kind of negative side effects, at all.

I don't think you're getting why it's such a big deal. It's not that being circumcised has overtly detrimental side-effects (I too am circumcised yet have no "performance" issues), it's that:

a) It does create a desensitised penis (obviously if you were circumcised as an infant you wouldn't be able to say to what degree it's affected you personally. Your "first-hand experience" means squat - all it says is you've retained sufficient sensitivity. It gives no insight into how much sensitivity you may have lost).
b) It loses mechanical function, as the foreskin serves to reduce friction during intercourse/masturbation, among other things.
c) Like all surgeries there are risks, and the child may end up with botched penis all because of a cosmetic surgery.
d) This is the biggie - the child's right to an intact body is permanently and unnecessarily violated.

Imagine if you will a parent that wanted to cut the earlobes off their child. There wouldn't be any side affects (beyond aesthetics) - the child would still be able to hear just fine. Is that reason (i.e. lack of detrimental effects) justification enough to allow the parent to mutilate the child however they see fit? Should a parent be allowed to remove the earlobes, or tattoo, or pierce their child for no good reason? Don't you think people should have the right to NOT be mutilated for no reason? Isn't that reason alone to outlaw elective circumcision regardless of whether or not there are "negative side effects"?

Mutilate
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. - Doesn't do this
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
Disfigure - To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform. - doesn't do that
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. - doesn't make it imperfect (Can't make something imperfect if it wasn't perfect to begin with)
It is not mutilation at all, cutting of an earlobe, would be mutilation, removing the foreskin is not. Removing an earlobe will most likely inspire the ire of the child, where as removing the foreskin doesn't (most of the time). Banning something just because you disapprove of it is a horrible practice to get into.

 

[NoeL]

Mutilate
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. - Doesn't do this
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
Disfigure - To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform. - doesn't do that
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. - doesn't make it imperfect (Can't make something imperfect if it wasn't perfect to begin with)
It is not mutilation at all, cutting of an earlobe, would be mutilation, removing the foreskin is not. Removing an earlobe will most likely inspire the ire of the child, where as removing the foreskin doesn't (most of the time). Banning something just because you disapprove of it is a horrible practice to get into.

You're arguing semantics. Why not address the actual issue? Oh that's right - you have no counter-argument. -_-

But it's worse than that. Not only do you not have an argument, but the semantic garbage you've put forward in place of an argument doesn't even hold true!

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. - I agree, circumcision doesn't do this.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
Disfigure - To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform. - Circumcision DOES do this! How can you claim otherwise? A circumcised penis is aesthetically different to an uncircumcised penis - it is a deformed penis.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. - This it also does (your argument that an
uncircumcised penis isn't "perfect" is more semantic nonsense. Using "perfect" in the sense of "complete, unaltered" - as the definition implies - an uncircumcised penis is "perfect").

But it get's worse still! You then claim removing an earlobe IS mutilation, despite the fact I could use the exact same (poor) arguments you put forward to claim circumcision ISN'T mutilation! Removing earlobes doesn't cripple the person, and if they have ugly ears you could claim their ears were never "perfect" to begin with. See? It's not "mutilation", therefore it's totally ok to do to a non-consenting, defenseless infant! What's that? 'Non sequitur' you say? I don't even know what that is ;-;

Your next sentence though... holy shitballs:

Removing an earlobe will most likely inspire the ire of the child, where as removing the foreskin doesn't (most of the time)

Are you kidding me? Let's say you lived in a society where mutilating (using your word here) the earlobes of infants was the norm, and people with earlobes were considered unattractive. In such a case the kid would probably be pissed off his earlobes WEREN'T cut off! Does that mean cutting earlobes isn't mutilation? You can't use the argument "well everyone does it" to claim something isn't mutilation. Whether or not the child resents their circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not circumcision is mutilation, or moral.

Banning something just because you disapprove of it is a horrible practice to get into.

I consider sitting back and doing nothing while innocent children are mutilated a pretty horrible thing to get into too, so how do we resolve this dilemma? The idiot might say "Herpa derp, maybe I should just use semantic tricks to weasel out of using the word 'mutilation'! That way I can continue to evade any actual discussion on the ethics of surgically removing the flesh of an innocent child for absolutely no reason and not feel guilty for allowing this abomination to continue! Hooray! I'm so glad I'm an idiot!"

... but I'm not an idiot D: So where does that leave me? Oh! I know - how about I consider the options, weigh the consequences, and decide which action is best for all concerned parties? On the "pro-circumcision" side we have:

* An old book says I should.
* All my friends are doing it.
* If I happen to live in a third world country without basic hygiene it can help keep it clean.

... ok, compelling arguments. What's on the "anti-circumcision" side?:

* It causes some decreased sensitivity.
* It creates more friction and chafing during intercourse.
* It permanently deprives the child of a part of their body without their consent.
* It requires surgery, which carries the risk of going horribly wrong.
* There's still the option of getting it done later in life if they want/need to.

... wow, tough call. I mean, permanently depriving a child of a piece of his own body sounds pretty harsh, but the "all my friends are doing it" argument is just so darn compelling!



Final note: If you choose to reply, please address the actual issue rather than ***** about semantics. Whether or not you want to call it "mutilation" does not fucking matter - it's a permanent surgical excision done without consent for no good reason. If you can provide a good reason (besides special cases where it's a necessary operation), I'm all ears. If not, I urge you to consider your position more carefully.

 

[Phisi]

snippidy snippy snip

I'm suggesting illegal to be conducted on children unless for medical reasons and is a choice for adults just like other cosmetic surgery for both sexes. Religion I also don't think is a valid argument as the child may convert or no longer believe in the religion when they reach adulthood. Just to clear that up

 

[ExileNZ]

snippidy snippy snip

I'm suggesting illegal to be conducted on children unless for medical reasons and is a choice for adults just like other cosmetic surgery for both sexes. Religion I also don't think is a valid argument as the child may convert or no longer believe in the religion when they reach adulthood. Just to clear that up

Aw man, don't snip unless it's recent. Now I have no idea what either one of us said...

Still, what you've got there sounds reasonable.