If you use "mutilation" for male circumcision, then you must use mutilation for all cosmetic surgery, face lifts, breasts lifts, breat augmentation etc etc.
Circumcision is cosmetic surgery. Period. It is not a mutilation.
That you do not agree that cosmetic surgery should be done on a baby, fine. But don't call it mutilation.
I'm in agreement here. If a guy is cut, i find it a major turn-off. I have said many times before, it doesn't matter to me how attractive a guy is, if he is cut, it just won't work for me. It's nothing personal.
If you use "mutilation" for male circumcision, then you must use mutilation for all cosmetic surgery, face lifts, breasts lifts, breat augmentation etc etc.
Circumcision is cosmetic surgery. Period. It is not a mutilation.
That you do not agree that cosmetic surgery should be done on a baby, fine. But don't call it mutilation.
Who elected you to speak for most male infants?Speaking for most male infants, we get over it very quickly, and eventually move on to other, more adult concerns.
Who elected you to speak for most male infants?
Well, what exactly are you objecting to? If some abuser had cut most of one hand off and left an ugly scarred mess, would that be "mutilation"? Would you be insulted and hurt to have it described that way? (Or insulted and hurt by the act itself?) What if they had done it neatly?Saying my penis was mutilated is insulting and plain hurtful
That is one aspect that is to be condemned. Many mothers would say that it having been done without their informed consent was what made it "mutilation". (And a Jewish hospital especially should have been less cavalier, since Jewish parents often want it done at home with ceremony and celebration on the 8th day.)- especially since it was done when I was a baby. Right, I didn't have a say but being condemned now is so unfair. In the 50s the education wasn't there for parents. Often times, as was the case for me and my brothers, it was done routinely in the hospital without parents being consulted. My mom said she was never asked. She was in a Jewish hospital (the only Jewish hospital in 80% Catholic New Orleans) and it just got done.
That is not what "informed consent" is supposed to mean.Nowadays parents are asked and it's up to them to do their own homework and decide what they want for their son based on the information they get.
Because there is no other decision like that one, to cut a normal, healthy, non-regrowing, functional part of the child's body off. The most nearly corresponding parts of girls' bodies get special legal protection (from not just ghastly African tribal cutting but any cutting at all).Parents make lots of decisions for their children while they're young and can't decide for themselves. Why is this such an issue with you intactivists?
Is something not missing? Is it not a piece of their manhood? Restoration can not replace everything. What could a shrink tell them that they don't know already?You're cut and feel a piece of your manhood is missing? Start restoring and see a shrink.
We don't claim to speak for them. Many of us do speak AS men who were circumcised without consent and object to that.Who elected the intactivists to speak for them?
We don't claim to speak for them. Many of us do speak AS men who were circumcised without consent and object to that.
People have always eaten people,Y'all need to get a life. There will always be cut and uncut.
Circumcised men say this all the time. It seems to be a consequence of circumcision - which is not surprising, when they have to rely on so many fewer nerve-endings. Yet intact men don't. It's not a question of "more sensitive" but what kind of sensitivity. More nerves mean more feedback, and hence more control.Also, I have a hair-trigger dick and precum buckets... in my case a more sensitive dick would actually be a huge impediment to my sex life.
Judging the penis and what was done to it is not judging the man.One thing I will never do is judge people for whether they are cut or not. All you guys who do need to get your heads examined.
The problem was not your foreskin but the fact that all the other guys were cut. If you'd grown up almost anywhere else in the developed world, no problem.I wish I had been cut as a new born. I had myself cut as an adult and it was the happiest day of my life. I would get embarrassed in school locker rooms with most of my pals being cut. I just wanted my dick to look like theirs. I liked the look of a cut dick. Now I'm not embarrassed to undress in locker rooms, if I were still in the military I would be comfortable nude with my Army pals in the barracks. I hated being uncut. I hated my foreskin. UGH!
So if cutting off a hand for no reason is mutilation, then all amputations should be banned including cases of gangrene?If circumcision is a mutilation, then all male circumcisions should be banned including those cases where the male has serious foreskin problems.
Cart-horse. If circumcision didn't carry all this cultural baggage, it wouldn't be nearly as common for "medical reasons". In countreies where it is not customary, the lifetime risk of needing it is one in thousands.It should be noted that we rarely hear of foreskin problems for females. So a clitoris hood (foreskin) circumcision for females is not something that is necessary or discussed much in medical books.
But for males, the foreskin is often problematic. Circumcision is one of the ways to fix it.
A lot? How many? Your source?Also, a lot of females, even in uncircumcised countres, prefer a male with exposed glans.
You don't seem to have been paying attention. The foreskin is not just skin but mucosa, a thin layer of muscle (the dartos fascia), arteries veins and tens of thousands of nerves.So circumcision is not "disfiguring". It merely shortens the skin on penis.