Vote to end Routine Infant Circumcision

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It probably wouldn't take very many face to face encounters before you found a circumcised man willing to demonstrate the true meaning of disfigurement for you.
Yes, it's probably true that some men are so defensive of their condition that they'd resort to violence. This does not make their argument (such as it is) correct, it just illustrates the irrational nature of the forces promoting circumcision.

(And just in passing, on the other hand, it seems perfectly acceptable in the US to denigrate, humiliate and generally say whatever you like about whole penises and the men who have them. A recent episode of "'Til death" included 18 such references, beating the previous record of 9 in "Off Centre".)
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, if you want to limit the topic to this then we can argue that it's not medically necessary to ...
But none of those examples involve the permanent removal of a functional body part.
Also, consent is not an issue here since a newborn cannot decide for themselves what is best for their body.
Or what is not. That doesn't make consent "not an issue". It means we should be particularly cautious about making irrevovacable, reductive changes to their bodies.
And I've yet to see any adult male bring in their parents to court for giving them an "unwanted circumcision".
Not their parents, no, but the first few against doctors have reached court, and some have won where the mother's consert was not properly obtained. The reasons more haven't succeeded are mainly legalistic; statute of limitations, death of the defendant etc.
But for the sake of arguing, can you find me any male under the age of 18 years of age who is not sexually aware and has suffered some kind of physical or mental drama because he was circumcised?
Yes, one young guy started a blog about it when he was 13.
Better yet, is there enough pre-adolescent or teenage trauma cases surrounded around circumcision in order to make the medical community and society as a whole to really consider the banning of the procedure?
How much would be "enough"? They currently get told to "stop whining".
Or is this primarily the "want" of older, sexually aware adults who have somehow convinced themselves that sex would be more fun if they had a little extra flesh in between their legs?
I love the whole spectrum of this logic. Disregard babies because they don't know what's best for them. Disregard adolescents because there aren't enough of them. Disregard adults because they're fooling themselves.

And how do you disregard all the men with botched circumcisions? Oh yes, by saying "Circumcision, when properly performed, ..."
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, it's probably true that some men are so defensive of their condition that they'd resort to violence. This does not make their argument (such as it is) correct, it just illustrates the irrational nature of the forces promoting circumcision.

It has nothing to do with correctness or defensibility of an argumentative position...it's about the utter lack of respect and disregard of human sensibility displayed in the inflammatory language of telling a person he's disfigured just because he was circumcised.

Rational or not, many people take offense to the idea of being manipulated as a tool of sensationalism, and even greater offense to being rudely characterized as flawed by some ignorant, braying jackasses who know nothing of them as a person.

My point was simply that I doubt he voices such blanket stupidity out loud, where his audience would likely invite him to count his teeth before continuing to speak.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
But none of those examples involve the permanent removal of a functional body part.

My argument was more on the subject of prevention, not necessarily describing each technique in detail.

That doesn't make consent "not an issue". It means we should be particularly cautious about making irrevovacable, reductive changes to their bodies.

I think most rational thinking parents do consider these things about their newborn babies.

Yes, one young guy started a blog about it when he was 13.

One down, and about 3 more million to go. :rolleyes:

How much would be "enough"? They currently get told to "stop whining".

How many adolescent boys are teased by their peers in Junior High & High School about their appearance? How many are the victim of "little dick" jokes, even with no actual knowledge of the person's dick size? I'll give you a hint... ALL OF THEM.

Body parts are constantly growing and changing at the adolescent stage. VERY few 13 year olds would even have the knowledge to link their unhappiness with their own bodies to a piece of foreskin. Again, another MAJOR stretch. (And I reiterate that this is not a foreskin joke.) :rolleyes: :redface:

I love the whole spectrum of this logic. Disregard babies because they don't know what's best for them. Disregard adolescents because there aren't enough of them.

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until the age of 18. You can't get more logical than that, because it's a federal law.

The argument proposed by the OP is to ban the practice of circumcision so that men can make their own decisions when they are adults. If that was to happen, that would mean disregarding a lot of documented medical research, discrediting 90% of men who live normal lives after receiving the procedure, as well as repealing some people's religious beliefs just for the sake of someone finding out that an orgasm is that much better with or without a circumcision. Unless you can come with some scientific or medical evidence that shows real health benefits for those maintaining their foreskin, your argument is nothing more than a perverse, moralistic issue based on your own sexual wants and needs.

Disregard adults because they're fooling themselves.

Not disregarding, but hopefully getting them to focus on the real reasons they're unhappy.

And how do you disregard all the men with botched circumcisions? Oh yes, by saying "Circumcision, when properly performed, ..."

Bad argument. As I stated before, there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof surgery or operation. If you're so worried about whether or not any medical procedure is performed properly or not, then you may as well not get it done because there's ALWAYS a risk of error. But as it stands, about 90% of circumcisions in this country are done without problem or error according to the source I sited previously. That's a better ratio than those who go in for repeated chemo treatments to get rid of cancer.

There's still no logical reasoning to ban the practice. And to be quite honest, I'd be a little offended if I was to have a baby boy, wanted to consider all the legalized procedures necessary to help raise a healthy child, and have certain ones banned all because of a small base, the majority of them being sexually active adults, who grew up believing their lives would have been better if they had foreskin.
 
Last edited:

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It has nothing to do with correctness or defensibility of an argumentative position...it's about the utter lack of respect and disregard of human sensibility displayed in the inflammatory language of telling a person he's disfigured just because he was circumcised.
The poster referred to doctors disfiguring babies. "Disfigure" is certainly the word we would use if it were a comparable operation to any other part of the body. Have you seen a video of what it actually entails?
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
(For the one who seconded the motion to silence discussion of this topic, VinylBoy is not exactly doing his bit.)
My argument was more on the subject of prevention, not necessarily describing each technique in detail.
But there is NO other prevention actually practised that involves permanent removal of a functioning part - even though we could prevent all sorts of diseases by preemptively removing the parts they infest or infect.
I think most rational thinking parents do consider these things about their newborn babies.
Circumcision is offered and pushed on all parents, not just most rational thinking ones (and nearly half of parents now decide not to do it).
One down, and about 3 more million to go. :rolleyes:
You moved the goalposts. You said
But for the sake of arguing, can you find me any male under the age of 18 years of age who is not sexually aware and has suffered some kind of physical or mental drama because he was circumcised?
and I did. Now you want 3 more million. That'll take a little longer.
VERY few 13 year olds would even have the knowledge to link their unhappiness with their own bodies to a piece of foreskin.
An excellent point, nor sexual malfunction, even when it is quite serious. People are inclined to think that what they've got is all there is to have.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until the age of 18. You can't get more logical than that, because it's a federal law.
Irrelevant to the question of prepubescent children having problems caused by their circumcisions.
The argument proposed by the OP is to ban the practice of circumcision so that men can make their own decisions when they are adults. If that was to happen, that would mean disregarding a lot of documented medical research
which is not enough to convince any national medical body in the world to even recommend circumcision, and which mostlly originates from the US, where circumcision is a fait accompli, an operation looking for a disease.
discrediting 90% of men who live normal lives after receiving the procedure,
So you admit that it has a 10 percent failure rate? That's horrendously high for a procedure that's purely optional. You're saying more than 120,000 US babies are damaged each year.
as well as repealing some people's religious beliefs
nobody's repealing anyone's beliefs, just removing the option of practising religion with a knife on someone else's body.
Unless you can come with some scientific or medical evidence that shows real health benefits for those maintaining their foreskin
We don't have to do any such thing. Does anyone have to prove medical benefits of retaining their earlobes or their toenails? Yet it would be illegal to remove them from a baby without pressing medical need. Sufficient that they are born with them.
...getting them to focus on the real reasons they're unhappy.
There's no reason to suppose that the real reason their unhappy is anything else than having had a normal, healthy functioning part cut off them without any good reason.
Bad argument.
Yes, because I failed to mention that not only are there the botches that are discovered immediately, but many more that only come to light as the boy grows up, and some not till he's sexually active. Even then he may not realise at first that it is his circumcision that is causing his problems.
As I stated before, there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof surgery or operation. If you're so worried about whether or not any medical procedure is performed properly or not, then you may as well not get it done because there's ALWAYS a risk of error.
For that reason, in every other case, surgery is a last resort (or else an elective option of the person it's done to), not a preventive option given to parents to decide.
But as it stands, about 90% of circumcisions in this country are done without problem or error according to the source I sited previously. That's a better ratio than those who go in for repeated chemo treatments to get rid of cancer.
Exactly! Not much better success than a despearate life-or-death measure! Yet people call it "just a snip".
There's still no logical reasoning to ban the practice.
Except the fundamental right guaranteed in various legal declarations, to security of the person, and the right to undisturbed possession of all one's property.
And to be quite honest, I'd be a little offended if I was to have a baby boy, wanted to consider all the legalized procedures necessary to help raise a healthy child
If it were no longer "legalized" you would no longer have to consider it. Just as you are spared the option of slitting your son's tongue, tattooing his head blue, or having your daughter's clitoral hood surgically removed.
the majority of them being sexually active adults
Who better?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
(For the one who seconded the motion to silence discussion of this topic, VinylBoy is not exactly doing his bit.)

Fine then. I'll just ignore the rest of your blather and watch as you obsessively whine and bitch about how life would be better if everyone had their foreskin.

You can imagine how a person may look at this and may want to have you institutionalized. Then again, since you're arguing for the very FEW people on this planet that has based their lack of happiness to essentially an extra inch of skin on their dick, I shouldn't be surprised. But carry on the struggle, my friend! :rolleyes:

In the end, you've provided no real, rational argument for validating such a political vote. So, we're back where we started.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Fine then. I'll just ignore the rest of your blather and watch as you obsessively whine and bitch about how life would be better if everyone had their foreskin.

You can imagine how a person may look at this and may want to have you institutionalized. Then again, since you're arguing for the very FEW people on this planet that has based their lack of happiness to essentially an extra inch of skin on their dick, I shouldn't be surprised. But carry on the struggle, my friend! :rolleyes:

In the end, you've provided no real, rational argument for validating such a political vote. So, we're back where we started.

I'm sorry. I thought you knew 'ration' has little to say in the matter. You should have surrendered to the power of the skin long ago. :wink: I have. Once you do you will experience goodness and light. You can touch the face of God.
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You can imagine how a person may look at this and may want to have you institutionalized.
Yes, insitutionalising people you disagree with has plenty of precedent. Would these be the same people who jump up and down shouting how trivial circumcision is?:smile:
the very FEW people on this planet that has based their lack of happiness
...the ones who know what they're missing, and the three men out of four on this planet who know what they've got and are very happy to keep it...
to essentially an extra
...the original-equipment...
inch of skin
...15 sq in of nerve, muscle, mucosa and skin...
... you've provided no real, rational argument for validating such a political vote.
It's illegal to cut any healthy genital tissue at all off a female child, no matter how minor, antiseptic and anaesthetised (so this is nothing to do with what they do in Africa), no matter the parents' religion or culture, no matter there may be unquantified "health benefits", no matter men may prefer it, and in some jurisdictions, no matter she's an adult woman giving informed consent. We have laws guaranteeing the equality of the sexes. It's illegal to cut any other healthy non-renewable tissue off a child. It's illegal to circumcise a non-consenting man. Infant male circumcision is a legal anomaly: it sticks out like a sore - thumb.
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, insitutionalising people you disagree with has plenty of precedent. Would these be the same people who jump up and down shouting how trivial circumcision is?:smile:

It's a figure of speech to demonstrate how much of a desperate cry your argument is. Nothing more, nothing less.

...the ones who know what they're missing, and the three men out of four on this planet who know what they've got and are very happy to keep it

In other words, you're admitting that the main reason to keep the foreskin is not necessarily an argument about mutilation but of one merely of sexual preference when one becomes aware enough that they've become circumcised? Forgive me as I laugh. But do remember this statement because this will come back to haunt you.

......the original-equipment......15 sq in of nerve, muscle, mucosa and skin...It's illegal to cut any healthy genital tissue at all off a female child, no matter how minor, antiseptic and anaesthetised (so this is nothing to do with what they do in Africa), no matter the parents' religion or culture, no matter there may be unquantified "health benefits", no matter men may prefer it, and in some jurisdictions, no matter she's an adult woman giving informed consent. We have laws guaranteeing the equality of the sexes. It's illegal to cut any other healthy non-renewable tissue off a child. It's illegal to circumcise a non-consenting man. Infant male circumcision is a legal anomaly: it sticks out like a sore - thumb.

In all honesty, all of this is completely irrelevant to you. You can try and hide behind the "moralistic" value of the procedure, just like how some fundamental religious freaks hide behind the Bible, but you pretty much exposed your real intentions earlier.

You just prefer people to be uncircumcised. You think the sex is better because of it, and because of that belief you want to enforce a law banning parents from doing it to their newborn babies who don't even know what a foreskin is. This has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. Nor whether or not we're doing the procedure to a non-consenting man because the OP has specifically cited infants. Nor is this an argument about medical findings, since all you're trying to do is discredit medical findings that benefit the procedure and call them superstition, while not providing ANY proof of of medical and/or scientific value for one to retain a foreskin.

Your one and only real argument is this... the ones who know what they're missing, and the three men out of four on this planet who know what they've got and are very happy to keep it. Speaking as a man who is cut, I can honestly say that I'm not missing a thing. Nobody with a foreskin can tell me how my sex life is "lacking" because my needs are fulfilled and then some. And I don't look at the procedure that my mom & dad decided to put me through as a safety precaution to be mutilation. Along with 90% of other people who have undergone it as well.

In closing, now that we've toppled over your last line of defense (if you could honestly call it that), I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't force your sexual preferences upon people as potential laws. But I know that won't stop you from going on and on and on and on and on about it, so go on ahead and keep shouting about the irrelevance of maintaining a foreskin. I'll continue to have plenty of circumcised sex and enjoy it. :rolleyes:
 

London_Calling

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Posts
129
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
163
Location
London
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not about whether you think an uncut cock has more feelings or not.
It's not about guys with foreskins not keeping their cocks clean because they're probably just as skanky in all forms of hygeine
It's not about American girls liking their American boys' dicks all neat & tidy & shiny & spotless
It's not about whether you prefer the look of a cut or uncut cock.
It's not abouth whether you consider it to be an unnecessary piece of skin or not

I would have thought it's about performing an unnecessary operation on a new born baby.
 

John Estes

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Posts
368
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I'm definitely against routine infant circumcision that isn't done for religious or for necessary health reasons.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I would have thought it's about performing an unnecessary operation on a new born baby.

That's why it remains to be a choice and not a prerequisite. And the idea that doctors "pressure" people into doing this is a cop-out. They can't do anything without the parental consent. If you're so upset that some babies are getting circumcised, take it up with the parents that decide to do it. But don't ban a practice that many people do find to be useful just because a handful of people don't believe in it.

This isn't a political matter, nor does it require a vote of any kind.
Nor does it require 8 pages of sexually-charged psychobabble disguised as pseudo-moralistic arguments from a bunch of near-crazed adults who convinced themselves that life for people is not worth living if they don't have their foreskin. They're almost as misguided as the extreme pro-lifer.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not about whether you think an uncut cock has more feelings or not.
It's not about guys with foreskins not keeping their cocks clean because they're probably just as skanky in all forms of hygeine
It's not about American girls liking their American boys' dicks all neat & tidy & shiny & spotless
It's not about whether you prefer the look of a cut or uncut cock.
It's not abouth whether you consider it to be an unnecessary piece of skin or not

I would have thought it's about performing an unnecessary operation on a new born baby.
Indeed, the main point is that R.I.C. is an unnecessary operation.

If it were "necessary" the A.A.P. and [by proxy] the AMA would have explicit policies recommending it. The fact that they don't says a lot.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Indeed, the main point is that R.I.C. is an unnecessary operation.

If it were "necessary" the A.A.P. and [by proxy] the AMA would have explicit policies recommending it. The fact that they don't says a lot.

I just had light bulb moment. Since you feel so strongly about it, don't circumcise your kids. Now that was easy. :redface:

Now onto the other change.org issues:

Global Warming
Animal Rights
Stop Genocide
Humanitarian Relief
End Homelessness
Gay Rights
Immigration
Criminal Justice
Fair Trade
Peace in the Middle East
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
For those who came in late:
Ideas for Change in America is a citizen-driven effort to identify and create momentum around the best ideas for how the Obama Administration and Congress can turn the broad call for "change" across the country into specific policies. You can help by submitting an idea for how you would change America, discussing ideas with others, and/or voting for your favorites.
Vote to end routine infant circumcision.
Immediately move toward ending routine infant circumcision. Support equal rights for boys, girls and intersexed individuals on the subject of bodily integrity, and respect for intact genitals. Our society should not condone harmful and medically unnecessary surgery performed upon infants. Circumcision is painful, cruel, and removes a basic right to choose over the individual´s own body. Require state Medicaid and other programs stop paying for it to remain eligable for federal funds, and support laws which protect the genital integrity of boys.
485+ people have now signed. Those who think that {guessing at motivation} = {refuting argument} now have 485 new arguments to refute. And if you feel strongly against it, don't vote for it. Now that was easy.
 
Last edited: