Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[mike1921]

I'm not happy with my state of being circumcised. Also, just because you're better off never having made the choice doesn't mean that everyone else is.

Out of curiosity, why are you unhappy about it?

Sensitivity decrease. Which at the very least we can agree has some evidence for happening.

I can agree that it is certainly possible, but it's definitely not guaranteed. Perhaps my penis is desensitized and I just don't know, but to be frank I find I have a great deal of sensitivity down there and I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Mine feels maybe a little more sensitive than my hand

 

[Lexodus]

Oh, this is brilliant. Look at all the doctors in this thread -.-;
And this whole 'sensitivity loss omg' is a non-issue. If you get it done when you're a baby, you won't give a flying shit whether it's more sensitive or not; amazingly enough, you learn to live with it. Just like how people who've only ever lived in Russia for example don't go 'SHIT it's cold, I just froze me nadgers off!' every day; they get used to the cold being there and act appropriately.

Snip

Listen to yourself. You're bitching about how circumcised men can last longer. Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Besides, have you ever jizzed through your hand?

penis is irrelevant

Outrageous! Penis is never irrelevant!

 

[Justank]

Oh, this is brilliant. Look at all the doctors in this thread -.-;
And this whole 'sensitivity loss omg' is a non-issue. If you get it done when you're a baby, you won't give a flying shit whether it's more sensitive or not; amazingly enough, you learn to live with it. Just like how people who've only ever lived in Russia for example don't go 'SHIT it's cold, I just froze me nadgers off!' every day; they get used to the cold being there and act appropriately.

Snip

Listen to yourself. You're bitching about how circumcised men can last longer. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Where are you from? I want to know where the term nadgers comes from, I haven't heard that one before.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Outrageous! Penis is never irrelevant!

The Penis is Evil! The Gun is Good!

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

To quote someone from way back in the pages -- the amount of vehemence in this thread is staggering. I feel that some of it is unrelated to whether circumcision is actually "good" or "medically safe" for you, and that particular part of it boils down to this:

Modern young types don't want their parents screwing around with their lives. Allowing for your parents being reasonable and good-intentioned people...cry me a river, rebel teenager types. These are probably the same people who would whine about parents getting their little girls' ears pierced at the age of 3, when the only thing the kid can understand about it is I GET TO WEAR SHINY THINGS ON MY EARS OMG and have no real concept that it's a little bit painful and fairly permanent.

No one respects their family anymore. Jeez. Where I come from, we don't whine at everything our parents do to us. We tend to think that our parents want what's best, and if they make a mistake, we forgive them. Novel thought, eh?



And to whatever person claimed that removing the clitoris and removing the foreskin are the same, you are quite certainly incorrect. One is a piece of skin -- it does not hold the tons of nerve endings in that area. The other has all said nerve endings, and removing it is essentially the same as scraping away those nerve endings in a guy. 100% completely different.

 

[mike1921]

Modern young types don't want their parents screwing around with their lives. Allowing for your parents being reasonable and good-intentioned people

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just because their intentions are good doesn't mean what they're doing is right. And just because it's commonplace doesn't make it reasonable.

No one respects their family anymore. Jeez. Where I come from, we don't whine at everything our parents do to us. We tend to think that our parents want what's best, and if they make a mistake, we forgive them. Novel thought, eh?

My family shouldn't have the right to chop off part of my penis for no reason= I don't respect my family? I wonder what you consider someone doing something that would be disrespectful to a non-family member to be.

 

[mirasiel]

And to whatever person claimed that removing the clitoris and removing the foreskin are the same, you are quite certainly incorrect. One is a piece of skin -- it does not hold the tons of nerve endings in that area. The other has all said nerve endings, and removing it is essentially the same as scraping away those nerve endings in a guy. 100% completely different.

That may have been me but if it were, if you look at what I said I was querying if the clitoral hood and the foreskin where not the same or similar tissue.

I dont recall reading any other similar comparison at this point in the thread.

 

[Zeryxis]

Circumcision slows the spread of HIV as the foreskin is prone to tearing and thus allowing entry of HIV. So no, it shouldn't be banned.

Also cut dudes get more blowjobs (true story!)

Huh...by my experience, my uncut boyfriend got and gets more than my cut one EVER did. Which was really none >n>

as for HIV...if you KNOW the person has it and you're f*cking them, then you'll likely catch it sooner or later, with or without the foreskin. If you just met the person and DONT know, you're deciding to risk it yourself. if you're five and boning someone, well then that's also a problem your parents really should have worried about sooner.

I wasn't circumcised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumcised, no matter what the mother says.

Glad the woman who carried the kid for nine months FOR YOU gets ANY say in the matter. I'm pretty sure, he's HER KID TOO. and i fixed your typos.

That is completely untrue. Heck, Jesus was circumcised. In the end though, no, even in the old testament circumcision is mainly just a traditional thing. Essentially the whole thing was made to stop common infections of the foreskin back in those days and has been adopted as a tradition. Noe it isn't needed, but 2000 years of practice doesn't just vanish in a few decades.

Really? Black slavery went away pretty damn fast. An Jesus (if he existed for reals) was Jewish. And it was for a REASON (aka less hygiene then)

Speaking for myself I pretty much feel that if you won't say "The Pledge Of Alligience" for any reason (it's a cultural thing, and if the religious line bothers you, consider it an anachronism like a lot of other odd cultural traits from other civilizations), you don't belong here.

Sweet, when can I leave?

btw - Alligience is actually spelled "Allegiance"

If it's not a religious choice, I don't think it really matters. However, I am a Jew, and I don't understand how people can view something as simple as a circumcision as "mutilation" or "sick" - it's no sicker then shaving pubic hair or removing an offensive mole, just done for different reasons.

To those who don't understand why in religion the children aren't given time to make their own choice, there are three reasons (at least in Judaism; I'm not sure about any other religion that does this):

1. When you're older, it hurts way more, and nobody wants to force their kid through that at puberty. That simple.

2. The actual religious basis in Judaism, at least, is that circumcision is a sign of the Jewish people's covenant with God, stating that we accepted the Bible (Old Testament only) as His word and that we agreed to teach it to our children.

3. Even if a child grows up and does not wish to remain observant, being circumcised does not "force" them to remain so. A Jewish person who decides to convert or stop observing can't be prevented from doing so, and the act is not a sign of their personal acceptance of the covenant, but their parents'.

So, basically what you're saying is, the kid is FORCED, without knowing what it means, to have a sign of a pact with a deity, accepting a book he can't read yet, because his parents did? You can't teach it to him later and see what the KID THINKS ABOUT IT?

The child grows up HAVING that mark of their PARENTS' acceptance of a religion, and yet if THEY don't accept it, they still HAVE THAT. It was forced on them when they had no say whatsoever and for a reason they wouldn't understand until they are older and can choose for themselves.

It shouldn't be banned and instead it should be optional to the owner of the genitalia and the child shouldn't be allowed to choose until later in there life unless of course it's for religious reasons in which case they can circumcise away.

So, if it's for religious purposes mutilating children is ok?

I say no one under 18 is allowed to be circumcised unless they have a serious medical reason to and when they're 18 they can do it for whatever reason they want whether it's religious or not.

BASICALLY! Yes. This is a old tradition that we've got to respect, it may not be the most humane thing but it's a old tradition.

Slavery and beating women used to be traditions. Why not respect them? BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG AND LIMIT THE FREEDOMS AND CHOICES OF PEOPLE.



I believe my replies points out clearly my stance on this.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

That may have been me but if it were, if you look at what I said I was querying if the clitoral hood and the foreskin where not the same or similar tissue.

I dont recall reading any other similar comparison at this point in the thread.

It wasn't you. It was someone else listing everything involved in female genital mutilation, including removing the clitoris, and saying that was what circumcision equaled.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Zeryxis -- so parents should be banned from teaching their kids religious practices at a young age and taking them to church because that's what they believe in with all their heart and soul? That's draconian, and you sound like you just hate religion.

Yes, there are bad religious practices. But yes, there are good ones.


(Edit: sorry about double-posting. my last post went out later than I'd thought.)

 

[mirasiel]

Zeryxis -- so parents should be banned from teaching their kids religious practices at a young age and taking them to church because that's what they believe in with all their heart and soul? That's draconian, and you sound like you just hate religion.

Yes, there are bad religious practices. But yes, there are good ones.


(Edit: sorry about double-posting. my last post went out later than I'd thought.)

Do you not think that there is at least a small difference between permanently removing a body part and religious education?

 

[Lexodus]

Oh, this is brilliant. Look at all the doctors in this thread -.-;
And this whole 'sensitivity loss omg' is a non-issue. If you get it done when you're a baby, you won't give a flying shit whether it's more sensitive or not; amazingly enough, you learn to live with it. Just like how people who've only ever lived in Russia for example don't go 'SHIT it's cold, I just froze me nadgers off!' every day; they get used to the cold being there and act appropriately.

Snip

Listen to yourself. You're bitching about how circumcised men can last longer. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Where are you from? I want to know where the term nadgers comes from, I haven't heard that one before.

I'm from the UK, England specifically. The term itself's a northern thing, so North of England and Scotland mostly, but I just like to use a bunch of different words. No need to keep yourself stymied- a lot of fun can be had with names. It's sort of like the experiment where, if you're seemingly posh enough and have an English accent that doesn't make you want to strangle yourself (so, not Chav), you can use any word at all to mean 'drunk'. I.e., "I got completely *trousered* last night, Johnson."

 

[Zeryxis]

*shrug* I personally do hate religion. it's screwed up lives and caused more wars than most anything else. but I'm talking about things that can't TRULY be reversed. replaced, yes, but not reversed.

 

[Baldry]

It shouldn't be banned and instead it should be optional to the owner of the genitalia and the child shouldn't be allowed to choose until later in there life unless of course it's for religious reasons in which case they can circumcise away.

So, if it's for religious purposes mutilating children is ok?

I say no one under 18 is allowed to be circumcised unless they have a serious medical reason to and when they're 18 they can do it for whatever reason they want whether it's religious or not.

BASICALLY! Yes. This is a old tradition that we've got to respect, it may not be the most humane thing but it's a old tradition.

Slavery and beating women used to be traditions. Why not respect them? BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG AND LIMIT THE FREEDOMS AND CHOICES OF PEOPLE.



I believe my replies points out clearly my stance on this.

You seem to have picked a fight with everyone here...it makes me laugh. Any way uhm your right Slavery and beating women is wrong and it's a good job that society has, for the most part, moved away from those traditions but a circumcision is not on par with these problems. Granted if you're Jewish and have a circumcision as a baby and grow up not to be jewish it's not going to be the end of the world and I doubt you'll be angered or annoyed.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.

 

[Koroviev]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.

When you are trying to argue a point, it really is best to be logical.

 

[mike1921]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.

No, they can't justify actions just because of tradition. I don't need to justify putting a christmas tree in my house because it hurts no one. I do however need to justify putting someone else through surgery.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.

No, they can't justify actions just because of tradition. I don't need to justify putting a christmas tree in my house because it hurts no one. I do however need to justify putting someone else through surgery.

It's hardly surgery.

I think this thread has gone totally off track and is just showcasing people's fear and misunderstanding.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.

When you are trying to argue a point, it really is best to be logical.

Indeed, but it's also best to draw examples, show some evidence of harmful practice, have a persuasive argument and show a genuine understanding of different cultures and their right to practice whatever they wish if it's not harming anyone.

And don't argue that the practice is harming children. That would be a logical point to make, if an obvious one.

Logic and rational are not the same thing and are somewhat condescending when used to judge, and that's exactly what your position is doing, another group of people's beliefs and culture.
We're talking about people, not programming here.