San Francisco considering banning circumcision
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
This is San Francisco. They live in their own little bubble of reality where being anything other than hardcore liberal makes you sub-human. At least that's the reaction I got last time I was there.
This will probably be defeated in polls. Even in San Fran, people are usually against interfering with other people's beliefs. There will always be people who feel they need to defend some group or another from a perceived injustice, and there is an unusually high concentration of these people in San Fran.
Even if it passes the vote, though, I can't see it standing up in court. There would need to be medical proof that it is harmful, and I think the medical community's current feelings are "meh". I mean, we let people shoot holes through themselves and put potentially contaminated metal rings in the holes, and nobody gets all uppity about that (with the exception of people who get uppity about post-1950s culture in general). From a medical standpoint, how can body piercing be hunky-dory but circumcision be outlawed? (Boldface to make it clear that I'm not referring to the debate about whose decision it is to have either done)
This will probably be defeated in polls. Even in San Fran, people are usually against interfering with other people's beliefs. There will always be people who feel they need to defend some group or another from a perceived injustice, and there is an unusually high concentration of these people in San Fran.
Even if it passes the vote, though, I can't see it standing up in court. There would need to be medical proof that it is harmful, and I think the medical community's current feelings are "meh". I mean, we let people shoot holes through themselves and put potentially contaminated metal rings in the holes, and nobody gets all uppity about that (with the exception of people who get uppity about post-1950s culture in general). From a medical standpoint, how can body piercing be hunky-dory but circumcision be outlawed? (Boldface to make it clear that I'm not referring to the debate about whose decision it is to have either done)
Lets consider this from an unbiased point of view. Would you allow a law that let people cut off their babies ears as part of a religious ceremony? What about their small fingers? They'd never know what they're missing.
I'm a strong advocate of letting people do what they want with their bodies. Allowing someone to take a knife to another man's penis is a gross overstep of religious freedoms. Especially since anyone with a foreskin can tell toy that it isn't vestigial and has a lot of nerves in it.
I'm a strong advocate of letting people do what they want with their bodies. Allowing someone to take a knife to another man's penis is a gross overstep of religious freedoms. Especially since anyone with a foreskin can tell toy that it isn't vestigial and has a lot of nerves in it.
Your assertion (not hypothesis) failed to establish any reasonable counter to the evidence.Elementlmage said:
For starters, a foreskin is not 'hyper-sensitive'. It's the natural state. We evolved to have a foreskin, and that foreskin evolved to act as both a stimulant and physical aid during intercourse.
Circumcision produces a callous to aid in protection the penis because you no longer have the foreskin to provide that physical barrier, and this callous dulls sensation, reducing stimulation this requiring over-compensation to produce the same sensations. I call this the jack-hammer effect.
Next time you want to introduce a 'hypothesis', actually have one.
Wrong. The head is the most sensitive part of the male reproductive organ. Now, without foreskin, when... pleasuring yourself, you're not able to play with the head. It's not prejudice, it's SCIENCE!WolfThomas said:
The liberty to mutilate infants who cannot protest or consent, to please an invisible sky-wizard. Of course that is a liberty we need! How about the liberty to choose if one wants to be circumcised or not at a later age? Oh, no, sorry, the invisible sky-wizard demands foreskins!Shock and Awe said:
If I were to pour cement into a woman's vagina in the name of the flying spaghetti monster, should that also be a liberty for me to have, even though she doesn't agree?
Direct Democracy FUCKING SUCKS! It is destroying California.
This isn't even a religious issue, anyone parent should be allowed to circumcise their boy, possibly some amendments to the practice but banning the entire practice... fucking Californians. They really are being ironic with their "liberal" reputation.
My foreskin has given me no end of trouble, but at this stage in my life removal is a prolonged, costly and much more painful procedure. I certainly wouldn't miss it if gone, so for any regretful cut lads you're not missing much.
Also, if I see anyone here unfairly comparing Male circumcision to female circumcision I'm going to flip my fucking shit.
The horrible practice of Female circumcision should rightly be called female CASTRATION! The female equivalent of circumcision should be surgical removal of the clitoral hood, it's current name is demeaning to female sexuality as it treats the clitoris is some trivial part of female anatomy.
Removing a woman's clitoris is like removing a man's penis, you destroy almost all ability for them to have an orgasm.
I just want to get in with that semantic distinction right now.
This isn't even a religious issue, anyone parent should be allowed to circumcise their boy, possibly some amendments to the practice but banning the entire practice... fucking Californians. They really are being ironic with their "liberal" reputation.
My foreskin has given me no end of trouble, but at this stage in my life removal is a prolonged, costly and much more painful procedure. I certainly wouldn't miss it if gone, so for any regretful cut lads you're not missing much.
Also, if I see anyone here unfairly comparing Male circumcision to female circumcision I'm going to flip my fucking shit.
The horrible practice of Female circumcision should rightly be called female CASTRATION! The female equivalent of circumcision should be surgical removal of the clitoral hood, it's current name is demeaning to female sexuality as it treats the clitoris is some trivial part of female anatomy.
Removing a woman's clitoris is like removing a man's penis, you destroy almost all ability for them to have an orgasm.
I just want to get in with that semantic distinction right now.
Alright boys, show of hands. How many of you, who ARE circumcised, are mentally scarred by it. Not physically, mind you, mentally scarred. When you can show me a person who is truly mentally scarred by having their Johnson cut when they were eight days old, I might consider the ban.
Also for the record I'm circumcised, my Father is circumcised, and my nephews are both circumcised and none of them complain about it.
Also for the record I'm circumcised, my Father is circumcised, and my nephews are both circumcised and none of them complain about it.
Actually, male circumcision can be compared to female circumcision. The removal of the clitoris is the more extreme version, there are other version which move the flaps of skin which would be comparable to male circumcision.Treblaine said:
And no, no parent should be able to force upon a child a life-long affliction with no medical benefits when they can just as easily get the procedure done themselves when they're a consenting adult.
Kids don't get to chose to avid having their vaccination injections, an adult can object but the kid cannot. For society to function you we MUST be able to leave such decisions up to the parents and news flash: circumcision is not "mutilation" or some sort of crime that can never be justified.Mr.Squishy said:
There problems with circumcision are trivial compared to the problems with the foreskin staying on, mine has given me no end of trouble and has severely impeded my sex life. Circumcision is actually likely going to be necessary to help with that, it is a procedure that usually benign, often beneficial and vanishingly rarely is it detrimental.
You cannot compare circumcision to cementing a woman's vagina. That's ridiculous, that would not only likely be lethal but is guaranteed to stop them having any sort of fulfilling sexual relationship or ever having a baby/
My foreskin. THAT is fucking with my sex life.
Foreskins are a breeding ground for bacteria and STDs like HPV.
Bottom line: circumcision is a valid procedure. Parents make the decision on this.
Sky-wizard has hardly got anything to do with this, 60% of American males are circumcised. The percentage of American males that are Jewish or Muslim is NOT that high.
Removing the foreskin doesn't actually do any significant damage to the penis. It only changes how it looks and that alone can not constitute injury, disfigurement, or imperfection unless you lay down some serious value judgments about an uncircumcised penis being more aesthetically pleasing than a circumcised one.Father Time said:
edit: Reined back the dickishness, sorry, woke up in a bad mood.
edit2: Btw, do you have any idea how incredibly offensive it could be to people to say that their genitals are "disfigured" or "mutilated" even though the only significant difference between circumcised and not is cosmetic? A circumcised penis is worse because it looks different?
edit3(I'm on a roll): Also, by that definition, a woman who gets her ears pierced will have mutilated herself. Is that how we should classify women with ear piercings? Mutilated?
I don't get why so many people are acting like this is about San Fransisco taking away peoples' rights.
Guess what? Mutilating someone else's dick is NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Guess what? Mutilating someone else's dick is NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Your first point is moot, sir. Cervical cancer while being an awful tragic ailment has no consequences for a male and therefore shouldn't be part of a discussion with such intense interest for the well-being of the recipient of such a procedure.Trolldor said:
The disease I'm referring to that leads to cancer is called Phimosis, which cannot occur in males who are circumcised.
The American Cancer Society lists Phimosis as a definite risk factor for penile cancer. I have found a relatively short summary written by an Australian doctor to elucidate this connection;
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics uncircumcised males are 10 times more likely to get UTIs. This is right off of their website;
While one percent is not even close to an epidemic, it still is an increase in the occurrence of UTIs.
I offer my counterpoint, a ten page report written in 2007 by the WHO branch dealing specifically with HIV recommending that circumcision, "should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."
WHO/UNAIDS 2007 [http://www.who.int./hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf]
My objective is not a moral one, the morality of circumcision is a whole different debate by itself and is also a subjective one.
My objective is only to show that the American Cancer Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization all have proven that circumcision does reduce the risk of various diseases marginally in demonstrable ways. If those slight benefits are worth the procedure, I'm not willing to say, but this is an academic truth at this point.
WHAT! that's like saying "Castration is a more extreme version of circumcision"Trolldor said:
You know full well when people who have an agenda against male circumcision they compare it to female circumcision with the full intent of equating with clitoris removal.
And there are benefits to circumcision at a young age:
-procedure less painful/traumatic
-greater chance of full nerve growth
-reduced infection risk throughout childhood
-lower STD transmission and contraction rate from as soon as they become sexually active
Problems that can come from retaining a foreskin:
-zero chance of phimosis (can't retract foreskin, it's really sucky condition and so hard to treat)
-smegma
-varicose veins on penis
-cleft foreskin during intercourse... oh god no.
Look, I've got phimosis. It's a shitty shitty condition and now I'm an adult I've found out circumcision is much harder than it would have been as an infant. I wouldn't wish phimosis on anyone.
Jews have rights, too.Worgen said:
Honestly, if they ban this, there should be a ban on Docking and cropping animals. There is literally no justification for this (besides, "it looks pretty") except in very few breeds that have developed genetic disorders. Most breeds that get this done don't need it.
HOLY DUCK FUCK! SOMEBODY ELSE HERE GETS THE POINT!!!!!Shock and Awe said:
No religious entity is forcing it on people. The Church doesnt even require it for membership. This is based off of the writings of Paul, who dealt with issues like this and others, such as eating food offered to other gods. He said that there was nothing wrong with it in his eyes, but he wouldnt partake in it around others if he knew it made them uncomfortable. The church has largely held the same view of circumcision. Its tradition, but if an individual, or an infants parents doesnt feel comfortable with it, they dont have to.
It used to be considered a sign, or a symbol of Judaism/Christianity. That was because in ancient times, there were more places in which only men would go and would expose themselves (For example, in ancient Greece, men in gymnasiums would exercise in the nude.) So more people would see it.
Obviously, the average johnson gets way less fresh air nowadays, so I can see how some might consider it irrelevant.
But I digress.... land of the free to do as you wish. (Ill leave the whole "parents choice vs. kids choice" debate up to somebody else. I think Im done for now.)