San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Rayne870]

It should be a decision made by adults if they want it for themselves.

Exactly, relegate it to body modification similar to surgical implants or people getting their tongues split.

 

[Chamale]

You can come up with a better straw man than that since its children not adult women.

Uh... you ever seen what it looks like uncut? Yeah, cut it please.

Alright. In some parts of the world, such as Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, most men prefer the appearance of "circumcised" female genitalia. Does this give the parents of young girls the right to perform female genital mutilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision]? If you think cutting a young girl's vagina for cosmetic reasons is acceptable, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite.

Female genital mutilation is more extreme than male circumcision, but it's in the same ballpark. A newborn cannot legally give consent to have his penis deforeskinned, and a newborn girl cannot consent to have her vagina delabiated. In neither case should parents have the right to make this decision.

If you really think that circumcision has benefits, let men and women choose the option for themselves when they reach the age of majority. Don't make it legal for parents to impose it upon their children.

 

[Diligent]

Every time one of these threads about circumcision pops up, you get 1 group going "eew, uncut dicks look like aliens" and one group talking about how barbaric it is to MUTILATE your babies.

Though I will say, if you're grossed out by the way your penis is supposed to look...really? Have you seen the rest of it? Not any less weird, objectively.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

San Francisco is so weird, what a non-issue to go after.

I guess this will decrease traffic at hospitals as people head other places to have babies (like it's so hard to get to an Oakland hospital) so... all right! *Slow clap*

 

[godfist88]

aren't circumcisions actually a good thing? why ban them?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I guess this will decrease traffic at hospitals as people head other places to have babies (like it's so hard to get to an Oakland hospital) so... all right! *Slow clap*

Right. There will always be a way to get around a law like this. Go to another city to have it done. And then, the state can't really do anything about it if it were it done in another juristiction.

 

[Eldarion]

aren't circumcisions actually a good thing? why ban them?

No. The health benefits are minimal if anything, your making a permanent change to their body and it apparently reduces sensitivity.

 

[RevRaptor]

Damn glad I'm not circumcised, I heard a chap once say that circumcised men enjoy sex only half as much as us regular folks.

The argument goes like this:
The fore skin is 30% of your erogenous tissue (anyone that has one can attest to that) and add in the fact that after circumcision, the exposed head of the penis thickens like a callus and becomes less sensitive and you have one broken tool.

I'm inclined to believe him, all the tissue on the inside of the foreskin is really sensitive and it feels amazing when my girl strokes it, also foreskins make blow jobs awesome. I really feel sorry for dude's that have had theirs cut and will never know how good if feels to have a whole dick.

 

[Gaiseric]

Sounds like something San Francisco has no business in deciding for people.

It's stuff like this that make me embarrassed for living in CA.

 

[jojoemon]

3: It makes sex more pleasurable

Phallacy.

Your bulb actually becomes less sensitive over time as it has no protection from every day frictions.

I see what you did there

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Are you suggesting then that Circumcision is not disfiguring genitalia permanently/ causing irreparable damage? I'm not being dramatic, it is the correct use of the word so I used it as such.

No, but its not like when you pull it out people gasp and lose their lunch. You mutilate something it makes it indistinguishable from its original form.

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

As messed up as that sounds I've heard female co-workers say that, and they're not even religious.

I've heard men complain about small breasts. Should we legally mandate breast implants? It's a surgery with possibly harmful consequences either way.

Should be up to the parents their kid, they're responsibility, their money.

I really don't care either way its SFC.

It's not the parents' penis. Let the boy reach age 18 and then decide.

My thoughts on this matter, and other such cases where religions get a free pass: Fuck special protections for religion.

Performing irreversible cosmetic surgery on a newborn should be illegal, no matter what your religion is. We don't let Aztecs slaughter virgins and we don't let Old Testament Christians sell their daughters into slavery. We shouldn't allow any religious believers to get away with things that should be criminal acts.

Remember when religious advocates managed to restrict the marriage rights of consenting adults in California? Now, the people who want special protection for religion are arguing that people should continue to have the right to irreversibly cut off part of a baby's penis.

Ok you're just arguing against religious practices which I really don't care about either way.
You can come up with a better straw man than that since its children not adult women. Breast Implants? Get outta here.[/quote]

Speaking as someone who made the choice to get the surgery done at 18, I'd like to express that if it's ever EVER going to be done at all it should be done when one is a newborn and won't remember the sheer amount of pain.

It was not a pleasant experience... though in comparison to having had both, circumcision is the way to get.

 

[xdom125x]

This is awesome. Finally, the number of people that understand that there is no good secular reason to circumcise a child has grown enough to effect laws.

Sidenote: found it hilarious that one of the groups supporting the ban has the acronym N.O.C.I.R.C.(yes, I know that was on purpose but I find it funny none-the-less )

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

That is one or the worst pro-circumcision arguments that i have ever heard. It is even worse than the pseudoscience. Cutting off the body parts of children for purely aesthetic purposes is ridiculously stupid.

 

[marfoir(IRL)]

From the point of view of somebody circumcised in a country where it is uncommon practice, here is my take on a few points:

1. Apparently less pleasurable sex. I cant confirm or deny this but its not like sex still isn't great. I think this sums it up nicely, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQlIhraqL7o#t=1m55s

2. Putting a child through pain. I cant remember any pain at all. Maybe it hurt at the time but w/e I dont care. I dont consider my parents barbarians or anything.

3. Aesthetics. Look, cut or uncut it still looks like a dick...


Anyway, with all that said I think its fine to not allow it to be performed on kids. Let somebody choose when they are a reasonable age.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

As messed up as that sounds I've heard female co-workers say that, and they're not even religious.

Should be up to the parents their kid, they're responsibility, their money.

I really don't care either way its SFC.

While that may be true for all three of those items, it isn't their genitalia being mutilated, and that's what is being permanently altered by this.

Mutilate
mu·ti·late
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Its an outdated practice and with time and education it'll fade but please turn down the dramatic exaggerations a notch, it hurts your argument.

Maybe it is an outdated practice, but what is the harm? As a circumcised, Jewish man, I can say that I don't think I'm really worse for wear.

Mutilate
mu·ti·late
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Its an outdated practice and with time and education it'll fade but please turn down the dramatic exaggerations a notch, it hurts your argument.

Are you suggesting then that Circumcision is not disfiguring genitalia permanently/ causing irreparable damage? I'm not being dramatic, it is the correct use of the word so I used it as such.

It's incredibly overdramatic. There is literally no harm in it, but you're making it sound as if circumcised men are damaged for life. We're not.

You can come up with a better straw man than that since its children not adult women.

Uh... you ever seen what it looks like uncut? Yeah, cut it please.

Alright. In some parts of the world, such as Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, most men prefer the appearance of "circumcised" female genitalia. Does this give the parents of young girls the right to perform female genital mutilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision]? If you think cutting a young girl's vagina for cosmetic reasons is acceptable, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite.

Female genital mutilation is more extreme than male circumcision, but it's in the same ballpark. A newborn cannot legally give consent to have his penis deforeskinned, and a newborn girl cannot consent to have her vagina delabiated. In neither case should parents have the right to make this decision.

If you really think that circumcision has benefits, let men and women choose the option for themselves when they reach the age of majority. Don't make it legal for parents to impose it upon their children.

It's completely different, because a girl who is circumcised IS damaged for life, whereas (again, as a circumcised man) men are not affected seriously.

 

[Jumplion]

Damn glad I'm not circumcised, I heard a chap once say that circumcised men enjoy sex only half as much as us regular folks.

The argument goes like this:
The fore skin is 30% of your erogenous tissue (anyone that has one can attest to that) and add in the fact that after circumcision, the exposed head of the penis thickens like a callus and becomes less sensitive and you have one broken tool.

I'm inclined to believe him, all the tissue on the inside of the foreskin is really sensitive and it feels amazing when my girl strokes it, also foreskins make blow jobs awesome. I really feel sorry for dude's that have had theirs cut and will never know how good if feels to have a whole dick.

I honestly don't really get that argument or how you can "measure pleasure" (har har, amusing rhyme). It make decrease sensitivity, but fuck, sex is sex, I'd imagine it'd feel great regardless of whether there's a "30% reduction" of sensitivity or however you can measure it.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

It the individual's choice whether to get circumcised, parents should not be allowed to have a minor circumcised in much the same way they aren't allowed to get it a tattoo.

 

[Jumplion]

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

As messed up as that sounds I've heard female co-workers say that, and they're not even religious.

Should be up to the parents their kid, they're responsibility, their money.

I really don't care either way its SFC.

While that may be true for all three of those items, it isn't their genitalia being mutilated, and that's what is being permanently altered by this.

Mutilate
mu·ti·late
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Its an outdated practice and with time and education it'll fade but please turn down the dramatic exaggerations a notch, it hurts your argument.

Maybe it is an outdated practice, but what is the harm? As a circumcised, Jewish man, I can say that I don't think I'm really worse for wear.

As a circumcised Jewish man myself, the question should never by "Why not?" but instead by "Why should we?" Circumcision shouldn't be treated lightly, and there are positive and negative effects on both sides of the issue. Yes, I'm not worse for wear either, but snipping off a piece of a kid's willy isn't something that people should go "Hey, why not!"

 

[Avatar Roku]

Damn glad I'm not circumcised, I heard a chap once say that circumcised men enjoy sex only half as much as us regular folks.

The argument goes like this:
The fore skin is 30% of your erogenous tissue (anyone that has one can attest to that) and add in the fact that after circumcision, the exposed head of the penis thickens like a callus and becomes less sensitive and you have one broken tool.

I'm inclined to believe him, all the tissue on the inside of the foreskin is really sensitive and it feels amazing when my girl strokes it, also foreskins make blow jobs awesome. I really feel sorry for dude's that have had theirs cut and will never know how good if feels to have a whole dick.

I honestly don't really get that argument or how you can "measure pleasure" (har har, amusing rhyme). It make decrease sensitivity, but fuck, sex is sex, I'd imagine it'd feel great regardless of whether there's a "30% reduction" of sensitivity or however you can measure it.

Once again, as a circumcised man, I can attest to the fact that yes, it is still awesome.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

As messed up as that sounds I've heard female co-workers say that, and they're not even religious.

Should be up to the parents their kid, they're responsibility, their money.

I really don't care either way its SFC.

While that may be true for all three of those items, it isn't their genitalia being mutilated, and that's what is being permanently altered by this.

Mutilate
mu·ti·late
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Its an outdated practice and with time and education it'll fade but please turn down the dramatic exaggerations a notch, it hurts your argument.

Maybe it is an outdated practice, but what is the harm? As a circumcised, Jewish man, I can say that I don't think I'm really worse for wear.

As a circumcised Jewish man myself, the question should never by "Why not?" but instead by "Why should we?" Circumcision shouldn't be treated lightly, and there are positive and negative effects on both sides of the issue. Yes, I'm not worse for wear either, but snipping off a piece of a kid's willy isn't something that people should go "Hey, why not!"

Fair point. One thing that comes to mind for me is that, even though I'm not the most religious person, I would say that my circumcision DOES affect my identity as a Jew. I feel that people are rather unfairly brushing the religious aspect aside, but the fact is, that IS a reason to do it for some of us, but it's being ignored for no reason.

 

[Chamale]

It's completely different, because a girl who is circumcised IS damaged for life, whereas (again, as a circumcised man) men are not affected seriously.

Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.

If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.