Circumcision - Extreme body modification

[B_dxjnorto]

Thanks for saying so Princess. LOVE your modified avatar. :veryhappy:

 

[NOINRI]

Faulty logic? You subject a baby boy to circumcision which is unnecessary surgery because the parents think they own the child and can do "what is best for him." I had my baby son circumcised. Now I know this was a bad decision and regret it. It should have been his choice as a human being to decide about his genitals, not mine. It's his PENIS, for God's sake, and a guy's penis is important to any male. The people having the problem with circumcision are those whose parents made the decision to have their babies circumcised. It's a little hard to admit the parents may have made a bad decision. An adult can do whatever he wants with his penis, but cutting the foreskin off a baby boy because he won't remember it is just plain cruel.

I haven't subjected any babies to anything. I don't OWN any although the parents who do have babies do in fact own them and can do whatever they want just like you did. And who said anything about circumcising for the sake of not remembering it? And again why argue over preference? Circumcise this penis, Foreskin galore on that penis. Who cares if it isn't your baby or your penis? Pedophiles with a preference would care of course but you wouldn't be a pedophile would you?

 

[deleted15807]

I'm thoroughly sick of hearing Sargon saying anyone who doesn't believe in needless circumcisions on babies are obsessed - how the fuck is it an obsession to leave kids as nature intended them.

Please please please Clueless Princess WHERE I've done it. More shit just made up. Give me links!! Making shit up is certainly your forte.

BTW your avatar is tasteless.

 

[encoderer2]

You anti-circ guys are off the deep end. Make your own decisions for your own family and stay out of others'. All your hyperbole in the world is not going to convince or change anybody. We're all free to state our cases, but give it a rest. Everybody here understands your point. Many agree. Many disagree. Get over it.

I strong believe that this isn't the scourage of the moden world that you make it seem to be.

 

[Jake90]

the parents who do have babies do in fact own them and can do whatever they want

This is so wrong in so many ways. No-one owns anyone else. In this country we abolished slavery quite some time ago and my understanding is that the US eventually got round to doing it too.

Thankfully in enlightened societies the child is not a piece of property - he/she has rights. If parents make unreasonable medical choices like withholding lifesaving treatment from their child the courts can and will intervene to enable medical professionals to do what is necessary. The rights of parents to make decisions have to be weighed against the rights of the child.

It is true that there are more pressing issues in the world than circumcision. However, just because other things are more important doesn't mean that we should ignore lesser issues. I am not usually militant about the circumcision issue. I like cocks whether they are cut or uncut. Sure I have preferences, but this is not about my preferences, this is about whether an infant boy's human rights are being violated.

Then again the US is prepared to throw human rights out of the window when its citizens are sufficiently motivated by prejudice and fear (Guantanamo anyone?).

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

The entire "laughed at school" argument is completely ridiculous, in europe you will be laughed at for being cut.

Yes it is not only Extreme body modification, but it's also extreme body MUTILATION.

Sex(and besides for our obvious moral obligations) is what we live for, we do nearly anything and everything for it, and for someone to terrorize it so much without people having a say is really deeply disturbing to me.

 

[mandoman]

Vinylboy, it's not your body I find ugly. It's your soul.
Keep your cookies.

 

[deleted15807]

I am so glad I live in an enlightened country...

Huum I do believe Bush convinced your 'enlightened' country to join in Operation Iraqi Freedom ne c'est pas? And France did not. Maybe you should look to France for enlightenment.

 

[NOINRI]

This is so wrong in so many ways. No-one owns anyone else. In this country we abolished slavery quite some time ago and my understanding is that the US eventually got round to doing it too.

Thankfully in enlightened societies the child is not a piece of property - he/she has rights. If parents make unreasonable medical choices like withholding lifesaving treatment from their child the courts can and will intervene to enable medical professionals to do what is necessary. The rights of parents to make decisions have to be weighed against the rights of the child.

It is true that there are more pressing issues in the world than circumcision. However, just because other things are more important doesn't mean that we should ignore lesser issues. I am not usually militant about the circumcision issue. I like cocks whether they are cut or uncut. Sure I have preferences, but this is not about my preferences, this is about whether an infant boy's human rights are being violated.

Then again the US is prepared to throw human rights out of the window when its citizens are sufficiently motivated by prejudice and fear (Guantanamo anyone?).

What is up with you people and your crazy comparisons. It's like what you immediately go to that to justify your--- you know, it's like debating with PETA or a republican.

Seriously, I've gotten rape and now you're trying to liken the ownership a parent has over their child to slavery. I guess people don't own their pets either because that would be slavery too right? *SCOFF* Ha.

And as far as I'm aware the courts aren't going around intervening on parental rights and preventing circumcisions so again more irrelevence. A non issue. Why? Because it's preference. And ahora mismo you are demonstrating your preference for uncut penis. The bad thing is that you would wish to impose your views on everybody else. Just like a reupublican. Now that's something that shouldn't be allowed here in America. You know.....free country and all.
No one is going to make you circumcise anyone and you definitely aren't going to prevent any circumcisions. That's a good thing.

 

[mandoman]

speaking of pets, you can't remove the foreskin of a dog.
you can't remove the foreskin of a girl.
each foreskin has the same purpose.
yet, you can remove the foreskin of a boy.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Vinylboy, it's not your body I find ugly. It's your soul.
Keep your cookies.

Awwwwww, sorry I hurt your feelings. Kinda.
I'm not here to please or impress everyone. The people who take the time to know me and ones I care for the most know how I really am. That's all I really care about. To be insulted by an entity that is nothing more than an avatar with words, represented by a person who I will never meet in life, does not get to me. Especially since you're judging me based on my stance on circumcision, and a few lines of carefully scripted sarcasm.

Even I wouldn't condemn you to darkness just because we don't agree about a parent's right to choose and a baby's so-called right to maintain foreskin. But all these threads do is push some kind of opinionated agenda based on one's sexual preferences, all the while banishing those who may have undergone a circumcision by choice or by parent's choice as if they're some kind of freak of nature or outcast of society. The majority of arguments regarding the anti-Circ movement on this thread (and others) have no scientific evidence to prove anything. They're just a bunch of people who take the "moral high ground" as if they're somehow better than others because they have "what nature intended", and they speak ill of people who don't have what you have. All of the proceeding arguments are equally as morally condemning. And after multiple threads about how cut men are disgusting, ugly, mutilated, damaged, traumatized, unnatural, amputated, inferior or whatever word of dissonance you can associate a circumcised person to, a person like me who has undergone the surgery has no problem standing up to the ignorance and treating it like the hate it really is. I don't bullshit or play around when it comes to threads like this. I don't dress up my biases in moralistic simile or metaphor and pretend it's something else, nor do I hide behind a newborn baby in an attempt to pluck the emotional strings of the weak minded. But I digress...

You gotta have a thick skin (not a thick skull) to be on a message board like this. People are going to disagree with you and occasionally say something you don't like. And believe me there are much "uglier souls" on this board. Watch when some discussions become about the rich vs the poor, or religion, or dare it get racial? Then you'll really see some nastiness. Meanwhile I'll put away my package of Golden Oreos.

 

[mandoman]

Seven721, the people who want babies not to bleed and feel the most pain a human body can feel, and end up losing half the skin on their penis, you refer to as 'panses'?
Your brother has a choice. If he doesn't like it, he can do something about it.
The choice, along with a hell of a lot of sensation, routinely gets removed from other boys.
Is a man any less of a man because he is a pansy? Is a man any less of a man, because he speaks out against something, defending someone who can't defend himself? It seems to me that it takes more courage to defend an unpopular opinion, than it does to tell people they are pansies, there are more important things, etc.
You talk like a man who is being asked to give up his gun.
Is it really such a bad thing to not commit a physically violent act against a newborn?
Did nature make a mistake, that only Americans need to correct with cosmetic surgery?
You hear the Europeans saying they are glad they don't have to deal with this.

 

[darkbond007]

LOL. These threads make me laugh now. I couldnt go through this again, this is like beating a dead corpse.

 

[mandoman]

Vinylboy, again you are wrong.
I have a thick enough skin, that I just severed ties with 4 siblings, because they railroaded a relative into a nursing home for money. Do you really think I can't handle a conversation with you, Mary, as you so condescendingly say?

It's not hatred of circumcised penises. It is hatred of the blind process that circumcision is some kind of holy grail, which must be done, against the AMA, AAP, logic, and reason.
If you don't think you have been damaged, why is there a scar? I am not saying that anybody's penis is inferior in any way. I am just saying that it is an unnecessary act, and ripping off an attached body part which is built for the height of sensitivity is cruel.
All the talk about health reasons ignore the fact that infection rates of HIV, HPV, and other diseases, are lower in uncut Europe than in cut America. The African studies are incomplete, poorly designed, and junk science.
You defend the right to the death. What is your take on it? You are gay. You are likely never going to have kids. Why is it so important that parents have the right to cut babies?
Because you want to deny that what your parents did to you robbed you of anything, or if they did, that it might matter.

I never looked at family circumcised penises, and thought they were ugly. I download pictures from this site, of both cut and uncut men, without much regard at all to their circumcision status. A fine looking bone is a fine looking bone.

Given a choice, fewer would choose circumcision.
Who do you know who says, "I'd like less penis, please"?
They have two things taken from them. A body part, and a choice.

 

[deleted15807]

The majority of arguments regarding the anti-Circ movement on this thread (and others) have no scientific evidence to prove anything.

Zilch. No verifiable proof AT ALL. There is 'No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction'.

They're just a bunch of people who take the "moral high ground" as if they're somehow better than others because they have "what nature intended",

A completely bogus argument. If for example you didn't seek medical attention for the flu and died one could say 'he died but that's how nature indended'. Bogus.

The African studies are incomplete, poorly designed, and junk science.

And exactly what are your credentials? The World Health Organization and UNAIDS are against you.

WHO And UNAIDS Recommend Male Circumcision As A Step Towards HIV Prevention

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_5.pdf

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This is so wrong in so many ways. No-one owns anyone else. In this country we abolished slavery quite some time ago and my understanding is that the US eventually got round to doing it too.

That argument is too simple minded. Even if slavery has been abolished in this "barbaric country" of ours, the issue regarding children and their responsibility remains to the people who bring them into this world. Until they are of legal age or taken away from them by authorities, parents own their children. Not in the same sense of a pre-Civil war slave owner. They don't treat their newborn babies as pieces of property that can be sold to another for profit. Well, there is a black market for that but that's a different story.

Thankfully in enlightened societies the child is not a piece of property - he/she has rights.

I take it you've been to secret meetings from Romper Room HQ where newborn baby boys organize sit ins and flaming diaper dumps against doctors who engage in giving circumcisions.

If parents make unreasonable medical choices like withholding lifesaving treatment from their child the courts can and will intervene to enable medical professionals to do what is necessary.

And there, in itself is the problem.
You say that the procedure is unreasonable, yet there is much evidence that shows its benefits. Perhaps a more, detailed scientific approach to discredit the procedure is in order. Instead, anti-Circ people just merely mention that it does nothing to protect the baby and then resort to a long list of moralistic, sexually biased statements.

The rights of parents to make decisions have to be weighed against the rights of the child.

Not 100% true. If that was the case, then a could would deny the parents to take them to the doctor at all except to receive candy and to play in the waiting room. They wouldn't want to get a shot even if their life depended on it because to them you're hurting them. If their tonsils needed to be taken out, they wouldn't want you to remove them... however, it seems that bribing them with gallons of ice cream afterwards to cool down the pain makes them smile. I kid a little, of course...

Children at a very young age, especially infancy, cannot make informed decisions about their health. That is why parents are left with that decision. And as much as you want to discredit scientific proof that circumcision does benefit some people, the evidence remains and the procedure is still legal. On that basis alone, a choice should always be made available.

Then again the US is prepared to throw human rights out of the window when its citizens are sufficiently motivated by prejudice and fear (Guantanamo anyone?).

PLEASE tell me you're not trying to draw a parallel between parents to decide to circumcise their infants and Guantanamo. This is the one of the most laughable comparisons yet.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Vinylboy, again you are wrong.
I have a thick enough skin, that I just severed ties with 4 siblings, because they railroaded a relative into a nursing home for money. Do you really think I can't handle a conversation with you, Mary, as you so condescendingly say?

Talk is cheap. You're the one calling my soul "ugly", dear...

It's not hatred of circumcised penises. It is hatred of the blind process that circumcision is some kind of holy grail, which must be done, against the AMA, AAP, logic, and reason.

And where do I position my argument as if being some kind of rite of passage? Where do I state that everyone MUST have a circumcision. I'll give you a big hint... I HAVEN'T. All I suggest is that the choice be available to responsible parents. It's legal, and it does have some benefits despite what you want to believe.

If you don't think you have been damaged, why is there a scar?

Seriously, I look down at my own dick and I don't see a scar. And no, contrary to your twisted beliefs on what makes a pretty and ugly dick, I haven't been damaged.

I am not saying that anybody's penis is inferior in any way.

BS... you just did one line ago. Or do you consider damaged, scarred dicks to be just as equal as the uncircumcised variety?

I am just saying that it is an unnecessary act, and ripping off an attached body part which is built for the height of sensitivity is cruel.

And here is where most people would agree that you're going off the deep end. You're suggesting that by getting a circumcision at infancy, that somehow when they grow up they won't be able to enjoy the best sex. Who in the hell made you the authority on what feels good to people when they're doing it? Really, is THIS the best argument you can come up with?

And you wonder why some people look at you like you're a pervert...

You defend the right to the death. What is your take on it? You are gay. You are likely never going to have kids. Why is it so important that parents have the right to cut babies?

I think I've already made my piece on this several times before. But once again, let me spell it out for you.

1. It's legal.
2. It does have health benefits regardless if you want to acknowledge them or not
3. Parents are 100% responsible for their offspring until they are of legal age
4. Babies cannot make responsible choices for their own well being

Sexual arguments at this stage are completely irrelevant, unless you think your newborn baby is out at night doing the wild thing and making booty calls. Parents, such as yourself, can come to the conclusion that they don't need one. And you do so BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, if you can choose not to give your newborn baby a procedure, then another parent should have the same right to choose to do it. End of story.

Because you want to deny that what your parents did to you robbed you of anything, or if they did, that it might matter.

LOL... I'm not missing a thing and my parents did not "rob me". You seem to think that my sex is somehow flawed because I don't have foreskin. Really, Hagatga, this is one of the most ignorant arguments yet. And further strengthens my previous rant about how people like you assume this "holier than thou" stance and try to place yourself above anyone who isn't like you.

This will never become a contest between you or I about how we perform or satisfy our partners in bed. So please, can the silly statements. For your sake. You don't want my sarcasm to start hitting you below your belt and on your "precious foreskin".

I never looked at family circumcised penises, and thought they were ugly.

BS. You say that they look scarred, and the line before that hints that something was "stolen" from me because I was circumcised. Do you make it a point to contradict your statements this quickly?

I download pictures from this site, of both cut and uncut men, without much regard at all to their circumcision status. A fine looking bone is a fine looking bone.

I don't care which pictures you chose to demonstrate your biases. This doesn't phase me in the least.

Given a choice, fewer would choose circumcision.

And choosier moms choose Gif. What's your point, Mary?

Who do you know who says, "I'd like less penis, please"?
They have two things taken from them. A body part, and a choice.

Well honey, I have plenty of dick down between my legs despite the circumcision. If it's an issue of having a smaller one just because of loss of foreskin, perhaps a fellow like you never had a big dick to begin with?

Try again, kiddo... your arguments get more shallow by the second.

 

[Jake90]

Huum I do believe Bush convinced your 'enlightened' country to join in Operation Iraqi Freedom ne c'est pas? And France did not. Maybe you should look to France for enlightenment.

For the record:
1) The Iraq war (and its aftermath) was deeply unpopular with the British public and especially so in Scotland which is less conservative and more progressive than the UK as a whole. Had Scotland had jurisdiction over defence issues there is little doubt that it would not have been approved by the parliament in Edinburgh. UK-wide the war lost the ruling Labour party and Mr Blair in particular a lot of support.
2) France is indeed very enlightened. I like it there. They also have a very low circumcision rate...

What is up with you people and your crazy comparisons... now you're trying to liken the ownership a parent has over their child to slavery. I guess people don't own their pets either because that would be slavery too right? *SCOFF* Ha. .

It is not a crazy comparison if you think about it. Slavery (where it is legal) is the only situation I can envisage in which one person has ownership over another. A parent has no ownership over a child I am sure in US law or indeed in any western democracy. They are legally responsible for its well-being and its actions until it reaches majority as is right and proper but they cannot buy it or sell it and they will be prosecuted if they cause it harm. A pet on the other hand is not a human being - that is a 'crazy' comparison - but even a pet may not be harmed with impunity.

Also for the record I am politically liberal - a member of the Liberal Democrat Party in fact which holds political and social freedoms as a basic tenet. The question is whether the freedom of parents to make a decision which is effectively irreversible for a child is more or less important than that child's freedom to decide for himself when he is sufficiently mature to understand the implications. As I said previously I am not particularly militant about this issue, but I think in any modern democracy we must remain open to reasoned debate and the possibility of that debate informing change.

In fact the assertion that parents own their children got me far more riled than the question of circumcision, which I agree for most guys where it is considered the norm is not a huge issue. Actually the 'being laughed at' issue is one which I think is relevant and if this is the reason that parents decide to circumcise at least they are acting with good intentions. Unfortunately kids will pick on anyone different for no good reason, though I think this could be solved through education.

I would have hoped that we could have a reasoned debate on this issue, but alas there are many here resorting to abuse and name-calling, much like the school locker room I fear...

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

speaking of pets, you can't remove the foreskin of a dog.

wrong, there was a guy last year that had his dog's foreskin remove and had a bar mitzvah for him due to the guy being jewish.

 

[deleted15807]

For the record:
1) The Iraq war (and its aftermath) was deeply unpopular with the British public and especially so in Scotland which is less conservative and more progressive than the UK as a whole. Had Scotland had jurisdiction over defence issues there is little doubt that it would not have been approved by the parliament in Edinburgh. UK-wide the war lost the ruling Labour party and Mr Blair in particular a lot of support.

Yawn:24:. Bottom line you did it.When your house is of glass do not throw stones.

I would have hoped that we could have a reasoned debate on this issue, but alas there are many here resorting to abuse and name-calling, much like the school locker room I fear...

Really? Your first post was to first claim moral authority by being from a more 'enlightened country'. Not a good start.