Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_tiger111, Nov 19, 2010.
What do you think?
:banghead2:i think good lord NO, not this again!!!!! aaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!:aargh4:
of course when an infant, thats when your suppose to be circumcised
Being natural never hurt me or my family men.. I see no reason for it at all. Dr's push this as an added source of revenue. there are very few medical reasons for cutting a foreskin off, whether an infant or an adult. It should be a choice for the MAN if he wants it.
Yeah, this poll is already turning out about how I thought it would.
Why is there no "flamewar" option?
Mods, please merge, delete, or close this ridiculously redundant, stupidly presented, perhaps deliberately inflammatory thread, especially as the OP has already been banned.
Redundant maybe, stupidly presented? How? How is asking a simple yes or no question deliberately inflammatory? Or is asking a simple yes or no question about infant circumcision inherently inflammatory? Because if so that's no reflection on the question, and has more to do with some members not being able to discuss this subject matter civilly.
Which thread do you suggest it be merged to? Deleting it or closing it seems peremptory considering it hasn't as yet caused any trouble. There are plenty of active threads started by banned members.
What is the question?
"Infant circumcision. Yes/No What do you think?"
I'm not even sure what the OP is asking. Does it mean how do you feel about RIC? Should it be performed? Do you approve/disapprove? Do you advise/advocate for/against it? What?
It's so vague, unfocused and openended, I think it could be merged with virtually any of the circumcision threads and blend right into the background of the usual "discussions".
Sorry if I overreacted. But this one just seemed to go right to the most emotional heart of the controversy. Plus being so vague, it just seems to be inviting reactions. Probably it wasn't deliberately intended to be inflammatory, but if you wanted to stir it up, this would be a good way to go. It's not like the pros and cons of infant circumcision haven't been discussed ad nauseum, and will continue to be discussed, with the same ground gone over again and again and again. Regardless of the stated intent of a circumcision thread, it almost always seems to wind up in a shitfest over RIC
Can you tell us why the OP was already banned? Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate Circumcision forum? I don't know for sure, but it seems like that might cut down on some of the redundancy. Maybe if people had questions or curiosity about the subject and saw it in the list of forums, they would be drawn there first for information, rather than posting a new thread with a random question that's already been answered thousands of times over by hundreds of posters.
mah 2 ct.
I never said it was a good question, plenty of stupid questions are asked all over these boards all the time.
Again though if circ threads often devolve into slanging matches that's not really the fault of the questions asked in their OPs it's more to do with the behaviour and attitudes of those who post in them. Besides if we closed down every thread that might cause a shit storm massive chunks of the forums would disappear.
As for duplicate threads, well I have my own personal view on them, but I understand the logic of allowing them to an extent, so I don't see any reason to close this one yet on that basis.
I don't know why tiger111 was banned off the top of my head, you could check the moderator actions log, I'm not sure it will prove relevant in any case.
Erm yeah I suppose a circumcision forum might be a good idea.
No argument here. Lately it seems more and more.
Completely agree. Though a well-focused question that's not covering the same rough territory might have better success.
And this would be a problem? :wink:
Well, as I said, I overreacted. I'm not advocating for closure anymore. Though I think merging obviously redundant threads is generally a good idea. If this one started to take off maybe, which it so far hasn't.
I think it's a good idea, and I hope you all will consider it. It's clearly a topic a lot of members are interested in and have strong feelings about. It's a fundamental penis appearance/identity issue that most men think seriously about at some point, and some men think about quite a lot. Housing it in its own forum I think would be a terrific easy to access educational resource, might cut down on some of the redundancy and random new threads, and who knows, might even reduce some of the vitriol. One can only hope.
mah 3 ct.
You don't fund mutilation, not only mutilation, but sexual mutilation(in fact in some cases, where things go wrong, complete amputation is necessary), potentially intensely traumatic(esp. with older children), repress sexual pleasure, with the intent to dull sexual relationship, child & religious branding, is not an important issue?
I don't even want to begin to ask you about your thoughts on the 'publicly recommended' surgical procedure called a lobotomy, lest you've already had one done.
Foot molding... same applies
The've banned those, I hope people will come to their senses and ban this one too. Over a billion are cut. These are among the most important issues facing humanity at this stage.
you always this angry??:aargh4:
mmmmmm, was about to roast some Chestnuts, so I think this fire may do just the job
There should be a "maybe" in the poll. At the end of the day, it is a parental decision, and some guys might wish to gauge their wife's opinion before making a decision.
Perhaps a better question would be:
Would you fight to ensure your son is not circumcised at birth ?
aka: is your opposition to circumcision such that you would go against your wife's desires and force her to accept your principles ?
No, absolutely not, it is NOT to be a perental decision! IT IS A PERSONAL DECISION, no less. Personal pertaining to the person, the person at hand here is THE CHILD, and it is only the child, and only in good mental health who is to chose.
Is there any reason, at all, that we can't say the same about female circumcision?
Same logic applies to foot molding, lobotomy, tattooing the child. no-body else but the child should decide upon THEIR OWN BODY.
Problem and confusion here is caused by really something totally besides the point, problem being the syntax that is when people say that it is "THEIR CHILD". It is not their child, but they are there to protect the child, no more.
You are assuming that all women prefer to circumcise their children. Often it is actually the other way around. The mother-to-be does the research and determines that they circumcision is not the way to go. It is the wife that actively convinces the husband. And believe me, once their mind is made up a new protective mother will vehemently protect their newborn son from the knife. Good luck to the husband that wants to cut and the wife doesn't.
There are actually women that not only have made the decision not to cut but have convinced their husbands to restore. There are women that are active members of foreskin restoration sites in order to support their husbands. Sometimes the husband may not be computer savvy so the wife stays on top of the latest techniques etc.
I don't have any statistical basis to state this but I believe that a large percentage of the decline of the circumcision rate is due to the mother-to-be researching the subject - not the father.
I'm not sure what circ'ed guys think, but never in my life have I ever said, "God, I really wish I had my foreskin removed!". If we look at the very few people who have decided to do it as adults, it tells you that maybe it's not such a grand thing after all.
Thirteen pages arguing about it here:
Why no dedicated circumcision forum?
and two years later still no action.
Lets make one thing very very clear...the internet is NOT real life and although about 77% say no to RIC, the stats in real life are opposite, that is that RIC is still chosen quite more than non-RIC. The studies that are out there showing the declining rates are not accurate at all, they are based only in insurance-paid and insurance-reimbursed hospital RIC. They do not include RIC which is done in a doctors offices or that are paid for by the parents out of pocket. From my own medical experience, the rates are still at about 50-55%.