San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Divine Miss Bee]

For a so-called "land of the free", America doesn't like giving people choices.

THIS. a hundred times this.

it drives me crazy when people jump up on their high horses and say that just because they don't like something, nobody should be allowed to do it. if you don't like circumcision, don't do it to yourself or your kids. leave everyone else alone.

 

[amucha98]

.

 

[Trolldor]

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

its only really religious for jews, it doesnt keep you from getting any diseases, it was started to make sex less pleasurable (at least thats why christians did it)

Actually, it does reduce the risk for infections, especially urinary tract infections, STD's, HIV and certain types of diseases which can lead to cancer.

NSFW:

Actually, I would postulate that it does indeed make sex more pleasurable. Imagine if you still had your foreskin how hypersensitive you would be? Would having an orgasm after 10 seconds of sex really be that pleasurable? Or, is it the act and not the stimulation that we find so pleasurable?

I lol'd.
Having a foreskin is more pleasurable for the woman, not just the man, and I can tell you that it makes every moment of those four hour marathons fantastic.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

its only really religious for jews, it doesnt keep you from getting any diseases, it was started to make sex less pleasurable (at least thats why christians did it)

Yeah but I think there's a delineation nowadays given the age of the practice that has transcended it into the realm of 'Tradition' ... rather than an act of faith.

Like how knocking on wood with your knuckles is a masculine anglo superstition o.o

I don't think even Christians in Wetsern countries would predominantly circumcise their children on a religious basis (but more so on the ideal that it helps reduce infection chances).

IU mean if I had kids ... or if I could have kids more so ... I would consider circumcision if it would increase my child's ability to evade infection. Same way I'd give my children vaccinations and let them eat dirt ... it just so happens that circumcision was a religious practice doesn't necessarily mean it should be avoided if it helps my child thrive #.#

 

[yndsu]

I am not circumcised myself and i am happy the way it is.
But if people wanna do it then let them.

Also, the circumcision came to be to as a mark of the covenant between
Abraham and God. And it was passed on to the Jewish nation.
And at the time it was the reason for it.
But the reason for the circumcision was done away with when Jesus came
and the new covenant was made.
So really, on the religious point of view circumcision has no need anymore.

But still. Banning it is stupid.
Also, circumcision would be better done when the person is young.
Easier that way. Doing it in the older years it would be much more
uncomfortable and it would take longer to recover from the surgery as well.

 

[Elementlmage]

NSFW:

Actually, I would postulate that it does indeed make sex more pleasurable. Imagine if you still had your foreskin how hypersensitive you would be? Would having an orgasm after 10 seconds of sex really be that pleasurable? Or, is it the act and not the stimulation that we find so pleasurable?

I lol'd.
Having a foreskin is more pleasurable for the woman, not just the man, and I can tell you that it makes every moment of those four hour marathons fantastic.

So, you attempt to refute a hypothesis using anecdotal evidence? Very good sir, you get the "Fallacy of the Day" award!

 

[Dastardly]

So you're okay with people cutting of any body part of an infant, so long as it isn't essential? i.e. earlobes and toenails are fine?

I covered the distinction in an earlier post, but this is a wholly different argument than what was presented earlier. For one, no one I've seen has ever demonstrated a belief that removing earlobes and toenails provides any health benefit. While science has been showing us that any perceived benefits are negligible or can be reproduced in other ways, circumcision at one point had very wide support--and not just from religious folks.

The information has changed, and it just hasn't reached the right ears yet. Since there is no "infant circumcision genocide" going on here, and the strongest argument against it is "It doesn't seem to help much," why jump straight to heavy-handed Nanny State tactics like banning?

When I was talking about legalizing violence as per your argument, I also meant violent acts performed on adults by adults by the way.
I was wondering if it'd be okay for a person to respond to an insult with a fist to the face.

Not sure what you're getting at, here. This has never been an established legal right. If someone insults you, you can insult them back, sure. But the first person to turn it physical is almost always found more at fault than the other.

Also, I never said anything that could even be misconstrued as "legalizing violence."

And banning corporal punishment sure has caused a lot of trouble.

In the US, it's not banned. In some states, schools are not allowed to use it. As a teacher myself, I fully agree. It's not my place to spank a child. That's the parent's job, and I don't need more responsibility in my line of work.

But for parents? Totally allowed. And I'm a "survivor" of a spanking household. I can tell you that it works. It hasn't made me more violent or less trusting or... well... anything. It kept me from doing stuff I shouldn't do, or that was maybe even harmful. It's not a cure-all, but it's one tool in the box, so to speak. I don't use a hammer for every job, but that doesn't mean I throw it out.

 

[RanD00M]

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

So dry dicks is what you like?

OT: I don't think it should be banned, but I do think that parents should not be allowed to make the decision for a kid to get circumcised and that you should only be able to choose it for yourself when you've become 18.

 

[TakeFour]

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

Nobody asked me if i wanted to get circumsized...

 

[The Long Road]

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)

 

[Philip Petrunak]

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.

 

[Trolldor]

NSFW:

Actually, I would postulate that it does indeed make sex more pleasurable. Imagine if you still had your foreskin how hypersensitive you would be? Would having an orgasm after 10 seconds of sex really be that pleasurable? Or, is it the act and not the stimulation that we find so pleasurable?

I lol'd.
Having a foreskin is more pleasurable for the woman, not just the man, and I can tell you that it makes every moment of those four hour marathons fantastic.

So, you attempt to refute a hypothesis using anecdotal evidence? Very good sir, you get the "Fallacy of the Day" award!

Your assertion (not hypothesis) failed to establish any reasonable counter to the evidence.
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.

 

[Retardinator]

But honestly this thread is going to boil down to uncircumcised and circumcised people's own personal prejudice.

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!

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Hmmm, seems San Fransico is trying to get rid of all the things that they don't agree with. Here I thought Liberalism's root word was "Liberty".

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!
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?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[Quinadin]

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.

 

[Trolldor]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Trolldor]

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.

Don't know any better do you though?
If you've always been circumcised, how could you possible comment on how it compares to being uncircumcised?

 

[Treblaine]

Hmmm, seems San Fransico is trying to get rid of all the things that they don't agree with. Here I thought Liberalism's root word was "Liberty".

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!
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?

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.

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.

 

[LetalisK]

It amuses me to no end when people make a big deal about this, even going so far as to compare it to/call it genital mutilation. Melodramatic much?

No it's accurate.

mu·ti·late
   /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
?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

Go look up what a natural uncircumcised penis looks like.

If you don't want to they are noticeably different.

So yeah you are disfiguring a penis by cutting off the foreskin.

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.

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?