San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[holy_secret]

Yes. I've never gotten it why Americans systematically choose to mutilate themselves. It's so damn ridiculous I can't find words for it. Why is it okay to cut off the foreskin, but not a person's arm, if they feel it's not a part of them?

This is a big step towards...hmm. What's the opposite of stupidity in a retarded way?

 

[blizard0am0i]

I think that arguing the semantics of words like "mutilation" and trying to apply it to this issue lead right into arguing about abortion, and perhaps I'm just biased but I feel that most people arguing AGAINST the circumcision of infants would argue IN FAVOR of abortion.

And that just seems silly yo me.

My opinion to state it: it hardly matters, should remain parents choice because it doesn't hurt the kid. Parents get to make medical decisions for their kids, deal with it.

 

[Mister Benoit]

Watch Penn and Teller's episode on it, that sums it up for me.

Pretty much this, the entire concept of it boggles my mind.

I was scared watching that episode for many reasons, but the biggest one was the couple debating if they should have it done to their child. The womans reason to have it done was because "If he doesn't get it done he'll be made fun of at school." Who the hell runs around at school with their junk hanging out for everyone to see.

I remember being scared around the age of 12 because I was watching some American tv show (I'm Canadian) and one of the characters was being made fun of because everyone found out he wasn't circumcised (He was European), then the women were repulsed by him.

Anyways, I've never encountered any problems, my junk is always clean and sex is awesome. GF loves it as much as I do.

 

[Skizle]

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.

You do realize that female circumcision is a Arabic practice right? and that its done in a completely different time period right? Female circumcision is done from anywhere from when she is a girl to when she is a teenager. the practice also recommends that the vagina be sown shut until she is married. This is only done so that the woman feels nothing in sex while the male can feel whatever he wants, in short its a domination thing that is constant in homeland Arabic culture / religion. Also the whole less sensitivity thing is a wash. It only means that if you dont feel as much you just go longer in bed, which is a win for anyone.

 

[Zenode]

The medical advantages are negligible unless you don't decide to keep a nice clean penis and wash it.

Personally, I believe it SHOULD be banned until that person is 18 so they can decide for themselves later. Its like your parents are forcibly mutilating a sensitive part of your body.

If anything this is giving MORE freedom...

 

[awesomeClaw]

Doing it on infants is NOT COOL and should totally be banned.

But if someone is an adult and wants it, then sure. Just because i can´t understand why someone would do it does not give me the right to ban it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

3: It makes sex more pleasurable

Phallacy.

More like PHALLUSY - amirite?

(someone shoot me for this joke?)

 

[Jonci]

I would have to say that there needs to be proof that there is any psycological damage from being circumcised as a baby/child. Personally, I was circumcised just by the decision of my parents. When questioned as a teen whether I had been or not, I didn't know the answer because my penis had always just been my penis. When I did learn what an uncircumcised penis looked like, I'm glad mine was circumcised.

Plus, I've heard more opinions from women that they prefer circumcised over not. Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be done. We pull wisdom teeth and cut out tonsils, sometimes before they even become an issue. Foreskin is useless, ugly, and poses, at least, a cleaning issue.

 

[Naepa34]

Its a cultural identifier from a bygone age. If an adult wants to be circumcised, then he should be allowed to, but parents forcing it upon their child, without consent, regardless of their intention, is questionable.
Think if this was about parents having their newborn daughter's ears permanently pierced at birth.

 

[ShadowKatt]

EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT FOR AN UNHARMED BODY

I like that right there. That's all that should need be said.

I was circumcised. I am not religous(For that matter, neither were my parents). I had no birth disfigurement. There was no reason for me to be circumcised at all.

I am firmly against body modification(against my own body, of course). I don't have any peircings, I have no tatoos, but I still have to live with the fact that when I was only a few minutes old someone felt they had the right to go in and cut a part of my body off.

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.

Circumcision removes sensory and protective skin from the penis. The penis is still functional. This is acceptable.

What if we started removing the pinky finger from every infants hand? The hand is still functional. What would it take to make that acceptable? How is that any different?

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

this is a good thing in my opinion. If I had a choice I would not want 4/5 inches of my skin cut off my... well you get the gist but still. It should be freaking choice for adults not something forced on kids because of beliefs. I think the Penn and Teller bull-shit epiosde did the best on describing this.

 

[Woodsey]

I do so very much love these threads. It's awesome being reminded by a sizable amount of people that my parents who have been very loving, stern, and supportive throughout my life are actually acid-drooling demon goats who villainously abused me by having a small piece of penis skin that is essentially vestigial and pretty damn gross-looking to boot cut from my cock.

Thanks, guys!

I do hope you're not trying to apply your sole personal experience to an argument that applies to millions (actually, billions I would imagine) of other people.

Whether you're exaggerating to the extreme on that I don't know (can't really be arsed to look through 11 pages of posts to see if someone has said that the people who do it are terrible human beings or not), but the main point is that you shouldn't be able to permanently remove things from other people's bodies when they have no say in the matter, and then have religion used as a 'legitimate' reason.

I would have to say that there needs to be proof that there is any psycological damage from being circumcised as a baby/child. Personally, I was circumcised just by the decision of my parents. When questioned as a teen whether I had been or not, I didn't know the answer because my penis had always just been my penis. When I did learn what an uncircumcised penis looked like, I'm glad mine was circumcised.

Plus, I've heard more opinions from women that they prefer circumcised over not. Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be done. We pull wisdom teeth and cut out tonsils, sometimes before they even become an issue. Foreskin is useless, ugly, and poses, at least, a cleaning issue.

Again, sole personal experience to validate an argument like this isn't... well, valid.

If people want it done when they're older then people can have it done when they're older. I don't possibly see how having the choice is worse than having no choice.

As for the arguments against having it:

- If you wash daily, then there is no cleaning issue
- When you pull back the magic sleeve (that's what happens automatically when you pitch a tent), the visual difference is negligible

For:

- More pleasure and feeling
- Serves as a protective guard

 

[Wolfram23]

I saw a documentary on the subject and to be honest I wish I was never circumsized. I think parents who do it to their children should be punished by law, but I think if a person volunteers to have it done then so be it.

 

[Dastardly]

So you're saying we shouldn't have laws against harming other people, but rather just try to discourage it?
Legalize, for example murder, child abuse or violence in general, but do our best to keep people from doing that?

That's not at all what I'm saying. I was pretty clear in how I worded what I was saying:

1. Circumcision has not been shown to be 100% dangerous and damaging. I'm living proof of that myself. So it's not a fundamentally hazardous or destructive practice.

2. It is currently an established right for parents to decide this for their children, whether for religious or personal reasons.

Child abuse is fundamentally destructive, and it is not an established right of parents. Now, at one point it likely was, because the law hadn't cared to weigh in on the matter. They then found it to be a purely destructive practice, so they outlawed it on those grounds. When child abuse was found not to fulfill both of the criteria I listed above, they went ahead and banned it.

Now, corporal punishment, on the other hand... That has not been shown to be fundamentally destructive. When properly applied, it's very effective at deterring problematic (or even dangerous) behaviors in pre-verbal children (meaning they can't absorb an explanation for why they should stop). It stings, but does not injure. It startles, but does not terrify. (NOTE WELL: I've said when properly applied.)

So to outlaw that particular right of parents would be a humongous problem, because it fulfills both of the criteria listed above. There has not been a single study that has even come close to demonstrating that corporal punishment cannot be effectively used, and while some have suggested that it's not the *best* way, that's not grounds for outlawing it.

I'm hoping that this has cleared up the distinction I'm drawing. It's not the act of circumcision I'm defending, but rather the retention of existing rights when they have not been sufficiently shown to be exclusively and fundamentally harmful.

 

[Redem]

Can't help but think all the circusion debate is doing so much out of so little

 

[WOPR]

It should be a right because: 1: It is a religious practice, 2: It can keep it from getting certain diseases, and 3: It makes sex more pleasurable

research shows that it kills up to 40%-50%** of the pleasure for the guy
true it prevents some, but it also makes it easier to get others

and am I the only person that DOESN'T care if it's a religious right..?
that would be like uber-religious types cutting of their kids left arms in fear the would grow up to be left handed because "lefties are the devils servants"

just saying *shrugs*
and I say that if I can be circumsized without my dads consent then I should be able to scalp him without his
after all, I'm just "cutting the skin off from around his head"
*twitches*

EDIT: **no I don't believe I have that backwards, I'm just going by what I read in multiple other threads of this sort, of course I could be wrong, guess we won't know until a full grown adult guy does it, cuts it off, then does it again

 

[funguy2121]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42784426/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/?GT1=43001

What do you guys/gals think of this? Should circumcision be outlawed or should it stay because it is a religious practice?

MSN = grain of salt at best.

I love the comments about how ugly "uncut schlongs" are, as if cut schlongs are simply gorgeous. It's a personal/religious right/rite (aren't I clever? No?), and San Francisco is one of the most tolerant towns on the continent. It ain't goin' away.

I've also heard that one loses some future sensation when they get it cut. So I'm suing my parents

 

[Trolldor]

Legal for adults, but fucking stay away from children.

At the very least circumcision impairs sex as you're removing the most sensitive bit which also aids in ease of motion, in turn you get a highly calloused dinger that requires quite a bit more effort to issue an effect. Not an uncommon story to hear girls accustomed to circumcision hurting uncut guys because of how vigorous they're being.

At the most you're inflicting on a child genital mutilation, which has absolutely no benefit whatsoever which can - following religious practice - be taken at any time by that individual (including adulthood), thus restricting it to when they're adults does nothing to inhibit their individual right to choose their own religion.

Edit:

And as a quick medical guide to all those out there, how about a guide from doctors?

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html