Circumcision

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Dilla

The point is that some parents are arguing that a lot of the vaccinations(measles particulary), despite having a very low chance of serious side effects, aren't necessary enough to risk debilitation for diseases that are either rare or can be wiped away by the child's immune system. Circumcision has been known to prevent UTI and penile infection, but those are rare anyway.

Measles are highly contagious, and can likely cause death in children, who have weaker immune systems than adults. Also, herd immunity is necessary to protect those who have health issues preventing them from being vaccinated. By contrast, UTI and penile infection are much less contagious and easily treated with antibiotics.

You misunderstand me, I was referring to the fact that being circumcised as a youth, I thought my penis was natural while those African tribesmen had done something, like what they did with their ears.

I'm saying that anyone who was circumcised as a baby would think that their look was natural to them, so unless it was for fashion, there wouldn't be a reason complain about it.

And you thought wrong, didn't you? The fact that foreskin restoration surgery exists proves that there are men who realized that their tools were neither natural nor complete, and do complain about it.

Er. . .what? You lost me here. Circumcision has been known to help prevent HIV.

More accurately, the spread of AIDS, in Africa, where the population is known to have a higher rate of engaging in risky sexual behaviors (no protection, promiscuity, gangrape, "dry" sex where to female lacks lubrication, etc). Developed countries are more educated, and know that HIV can be stopped with a simple condom, no body part removal necessary.

I'm done again, becuase we'll be going in circles in a couple of posts.

Probably.

[Knight Hawk]

I won't judge those who choose to get or are Circumcised. But it's pretty damn weak argument using the Hygiene "card" since it's nothing special or different washing that part. I mean, it's just taking a bath.

[Dilla]

Originally Posted by Knight Hawk

I won't judge those who choose to get or are Circumcised. But it's pretty damn weak argument using the Hygiene "card" since it's nothing special or different washing that part. I mean, it's just taking a bath.

It's also about wiping urine out you're foreskin folds when some gets in there while using the bathroom. Still may be considered no big deal, but like ledgem said, you'll be surprised. . .

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Dilla

Your right, I didn't. Even so, that's still much lower than people being struck by lightning in the US.

So? It's still a preventable death rate (just don't have unnecessary surgery).

Look, if you believe that circumcision at birth is wrong, that's fine, opinions are cool. But, don't condemn parents and those babies that have been circumcised and suggest that we've been mutilated or violated. It's simply not true. And deludes the term 'mutilation'.

I don't condemn the victims... just the parents. Would you be okay with parents who choose to have their healthy non-deformed babies undergo cosmetic surgery just so they look how they want them to be?
The fact foreskin reconstruction surgery exists shows that there are men who feel they have been violated (and given that body parts were modified without consent, mutilated). Easiest way to prevent these negative feelings: don't circumsize babies. If an adult guy wants to get rid of his sheath, that's his choice.

Originally Posted by Dilla

It's also about wiping urine out you're foreskin folds when some gets in there while using the bathroom. Still may be considered no big deal, but like ledgem said, you'll be surprised. . .

Why is that necessary? Urine is sterile, unlike shit, and it can wait until a guy takes his daily shower. And if you pull back the foreskin a bit when you piss, it can be shaken clean like a cut penis. Not pulling back can make a mess, because it sprays all over.

[VVayfarer]

Originally Posted by Dilla

Your right, I didn't. Even so, that's still much lower than people being struck by lightning in the US. ANd some of those may not have directly been from the circumcision itself, but by something that could have been easily avoided.

Look, if you believe that circumcision at birth is wrong, that's fine, opinions are cool. But, don't condemn parents and those babies that have been circumcised and suggest that we've been mutilated or violated. It's simply not true. And deludes the term 'mutilation'.

I'm not condemning anyone, I just reminded that circumcision can, albeit rare, also have negative effects on health.

PS. I don't know about people being hit by lighting (but not dying), but ~90 people die yearly from being struck by lightning in the US.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I disagree. Just because the end result is made to have a "nice" appearance does not change the fact of mutilation. If you had your hand chopped off against your will, but the perpetrators were nice enough to sew it up and fix the scarring, would you consider it not to be mutilation?

I would consider having my hand chopped off and not replaced to be mutilation. But your analogy is flawed. They aren't chopping off your penis, just removing some skin.

Except that getting ears pierced is consensual.
The "prevention of cancer" is irrelevant. No other body part is removed until it does become a health issue, and unless it can be demonstrated that the relevant cancers are inevitable (rate above 50%), the foreskin should stay on.

Getting your ears pierced is often *not* consensual. In fact some parents elect to have it done very early since it is less stressful than taking an older child who would be afraid of the pain.

I'm not arguing in favor of or against circumcision. I'm merely pointing out the extreme range of misconceptions and beliefs in this thread, the biggest of which was someone comparing male circumcision to female circumcision (the latter of which is incredibly destructive to the genitals).

Originally Posted by Alchemist007

I certainly see it as mutilation

It is optional. Doctors may advise for or against it but it is not legally required to perform circumcision. The choice is still the guardians.

My point is, why force it on babies (unless medically needed/religious things (which I will leave my opinion absent on))? If they want it so much, they can get it later.

You are forced to do many many things as a child. A large portion of them most people can't even remember. Think back to when you where three, four, or even five years of age. Exactly how much can you remember?

Children have rights, yes. But this argument is suddenly reminding me of the old abortion viewpoints. I'd rather not go down that road if people are going to be this polarized on the topic.

Look, yes circumcisions can be botched and sometimes even the simplest of medical procedures can go horribly wrong. But in most Western cultures the practice is legal and optional, and can bring health benefits, even if they are minor. There are no strong arguments for or against it. You can argue that it is unnecessary and can cause deaths, but many of those are attributed to poor procedures. Speculation is still rampant on the "might have beens" but over the millions of procedures the amount of deaths is incredibly small. The jury is still out one way or another. Would not performing the procedure have saved some lives? Maybe. But without reviewing every single case thoroughly who's to say? Certainly not a bunch of random people on an anime forum.

In any case, it is optional. A good doctor should always leave the choice to the parents. Outsider opinion on if it should be legal or not will probably always be circular until society as a whole decides one way or another.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Mystique

The question could be 'do women generally care about it'?
Again, this isn't 18+, so I can't link a few blogs and websites of women who're mad into giving oral sex to guys who've compared, discussed and given their opinions on both circumcised and uncircumcised penises.
While it definitely shouldn’t be the make or break of a relationship, it's a sexual preference, just like men have it on whether a girl shaves below or not, or how big her breasts are.
People are attracted to different things, circumcised penises is one of them.

Spoiler for Sexuality and Circumcision reasons:

E:
Many women think that their baby sons look neater and tidier after circumcision. In their husbands some think the circumcised penis is more handsome and do not regard the operation as a mutilation. They may well be 'turned on' by the sight of the naked glans but the absence of smell and smegma may be contributory factors. Women are more willing to participate in fellatio (oral sex) if their partner is circumcised. The glans without its masking foreskin tends to produce a m ore prominent bulge in tight clothing which some females find sexually stimulating.
F:
A male reaches his climax or orgasm ('comes') in about half the time it takes a female to achieve orgasm. The ideal is for the female to have one or more orgasms before the male reaches his climax. It is not uncommon, particularly for inexperienced men, to have difficulty in delaying orgasm to meet the needs of their partner. Various measures, including circumcision, may be used to delay orgasm. After circumcision the glans becomes dry, tougher and less sensitive. Most men find that after the operation orgasm is delayed but much more intense and their partners notice that they 'last longer'.
G:
After circumcision the glans increases in girth, since it is no longer constricted by the prepuce, and the margins of the base of the glans become more prominent. In the uncircumcised man the rolled back foreskin masks the margins of the glans hence circumcision makes these parts more prominent during intercourse. The circumcised penis thus makes better contact with the vagina increasing stimulation and pleasure for both partners.

My question still stands. I don't know how many Britons are circumcised, but in France, the percentage is pretty low (I don't remember the exact number, but it's low). So, must French women don't care by default. Most of them don't ask for it, and don't talk about it a lot (I know a personal experience doesn't really count but with my friends, we talked about that only a few times, and most of them didn't care)

So, if most girls in Japan don't care and/or are not curious to "try" to sleep with a guy who is circumcised, then the men should not care imo. At least, they should care about what the women in their country actually complain about, and not about what they don't care for now.

Most french women seem to not care at all ; so there is no reason for the French men to get upset about being circumcised or not.

To continue about France, there's something people here didn't talk about a lot: The Laws

In France, Circumcision is not something you should normally do like buying bread. The state and justice tend to tolerate it since not a lot of circumcised people complain, but on a legal pov, it's way more complicated, because:

- When the person is a baby, the two parents (it's important, the two of them have to be OK. I will not talk about the cases when only one parents chooses, I don't want to feed my, already big, wall of texts) have the responsibilities to choose what the baby need. To be more clear, the two parents have the responsibilities of their baby's health.

- But on a law pov, the circumcision is legally permitted on medical imperative. So, as a medical treatment only.

- If the person is not a baby (I don't remember the exact age), the parents have the obligation to take his opinion in account. If he doesn't want it, they he can't be forced to do it.

- The circumcision on baby, when not practised on medical imperative is somewhat tolerated by the french society for some odd reasons like the fact that it's something that some people do since ancient ages. But, because of another law, and even if i don't remember any cases that did go to the court of assises, the parents could encounter some problems if the boy goes against them about that. It's because of an article of the french civil code. It is said that each person (and a baby is a person) has the right to have his body respected. The inviolability of a person's body is an important law.

- Also, people are legally permitted to have a religion, but, it's illegal to mutilate a person for religious reason. And it does include circumcision for what i know.

For many reasons, the justice is still wondering if they should take actions to ban it or not when not practised on medical imperative. Like the fact that they are aware that if they take actions to ban it, they know that a lot of parents will make do it in secret, by bad people/ not good doctors etc. They also wonder if we should definitely classify it as a mutilation that should be be punished.

Now lastly, health and hygiene reasons.
As WK so eloquently put it, people can just learn how to use soap and have a bath.
We're taking about human beings here, what you just said is no different than from doctors telling us to:
Eat 5 portions of fruit and veg, do not smoke, drink water.
We don't do it.

Maybe you're generalizing a little While it might be true that everybody at least once didn't wash his/her hand in a life while she/he had to (like before going to eat), I know people, including me, who are very cautious about the hygiene of their "private parts" (around me, it mostly includes women though xD)

Simple-ass common sense stuff but we do not do it. A majority of humans aren't hygiene conscious.

It doesn't mean that we should not at least try to improve their education instead of not caring.

At this point I think I've argued from most sides.
Free will issue?
I am a kid who had their 'free will' taken away, if I had to pierce my ears now, alike Narona, I'd probably not do it.
But it's a part of me, I like wearing earrings and think them pretty.

Since I am part of those who had the choice, I feel really thankfull to my parents. I see it as a mark of respect from them towards me (well it does help since my mom has the same opinion as me).

As a personnal conclusion, I didn't even refuse it because I fear the pain xD, I refused it because I like my body like how it is, and I take care of it. And I really doesn't want to pierce any part or add a tatoo or things like that

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Public bathing?
I think they are more accustomed to seeing each other nude compare to other country.

Japaneses are fan of public bathing between men and women ? xD Or do you mean that when men go together in public baths, they compare each other penis? xD

[blue skies]

DISCLAIMER: I'm a lady and probably don't have much business inserting my viewpoints here. BUT!

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I don't condemn the victims... just the parents. Would you be okay with parents who choose to have their healthy non-deformed babies undergo cosmetic surgery just so they look how they want them to be?
The fact foreskin reconstruction surgery exists shows that there are men who feel they have been violated (and given that body parts were modified without consent, mutilated). Easiest way to prevent these negative feelings: don't circumsize babies. If an adult guy wants to get rid of his sheath, that's his choice

The thing is, parents are just trying to do what they think is best for their kids. People who get their sons circumcised aren't thinking, "oh hey let's chop up his penis lol." They think (as most people have already said) that it'll remove any hygiene issues (bad excuse yes shh I know) and could possibly help prevent cancer later in life, or have it done because it's been done to them and they never had problems so if it's good enough for them, then by God... They're considering the benefits of the procedure; they don't see it as a violation or mutilation, just a precautionary measure a lot of people choose to take.

Of course there are some risks involved too, but from what I've been told by friends and relatives who have children is they feel the benefits outweigh everything else. As far as sex goes, being circumcised doesn't ruin it for you or anything like that; I have yet to hear a guy complain that sex is bad because his parents had him circumcised as a baby. Then again, they wouldn't know if sex is any better if you're uncircumcised, but it certainly doesn't seem to inhibit them in any way. In short, Parents are just trying to make life a tiny bit easier for their son. Chances are, the kid's going to grow up perfectly normal and well, not care too much one way or the other.

My boyfriend and all three of my brothers were circumcised; if you told them their rights had been taken away and they'd been violated and mutilated akin to some poor circumcised African girl, you'd probably get a few funny looks and raised eyebrows. It simply doesn't matter to them (and frankly most other people) whether they've been cut or not. Personally, if I have a son, I think I'd be more in favor of having him circumcised. It's definitely something I'll put a lot of thought into and I could easily change my mind, but simply knowing that it can be beneficial (if only minutely) and after reading Mystique's very informative post, I lean more towards having it done. Something tells me my hypothetical son won't care and won't hate his father and I for mutilating his genitals when he grows up.

tl;dr if you think it's despicable slimy scummy whatever, that's just swell. But don't condemn parents for trying to do what they honestly feel is in their child's best interests. It's relatively minor and chances are, the kid won't care.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Solace

I would consider having my hand chopped off and not replaced to be mutilation. But your analogy is flawed. They aren't chopping off your penis, just removing some skin.

Are you circumsized or uncircumsized? The "some skin" is not just one or two layers, it is a sheath of living flesh (not just the dead epidermal skin) around the head of the penis, somewhat analagous to eyelids, and thicker.

Getting your ears pierced is often *not* consensual. In fact some parents elect to have it done very early since it is less stressful than taking an older child who would be afraid of the pain.

That's odd. I'm under the impression that girls treat getting their ears pierced as some sort of ritual to be proud of, meaning that they were old enough to know what they're getting. And to honest, a tiny hole is less drastic than removal of flesh.

I'm not arguing in favor of or against circumcision. I'm merely pointing out the extreme range of misconceptions and beliefs in this thread, the biggest of which was someone comparing male circumcision to female circumcision (the latter of which is incredibly destructive to the genitals).

The implications are different, but the philosophy behind the practice is the same: religious ritual.

You are forced to do many many things as a child. A large portion of them most people can't even remember. Think back to when you where three, four, or even five years of age. Exactly how much can you remember?

Childhood activities are not the same as removal of body parts.

Look, yes circumcisions can be botched and sometimes even the simplest of medical procedures can go horribly wrong. But in most Western cultures the practice is legal and optional, and can bring health benefits, even if they are minor. There are no strong arguments for or against it. You can argue that it is unnecessary and can cause deaths, but many of those are attributed to poor procedures. Speculation is still rampant on the "might have beens" but over the millions of procedures the amount of deaths is incredibly small. The jury is still out one way or another. Would not performing the procedure have saved some lives? Maybe. But without reviewing every single case thoroughly who's to say? Certainly not a bunch of random people on an anime forum.

You contradict yourself. Not performing circumcision would definitely have saved the lives of those lost to it, no matter what low number that is, because then the "poor procedures" would not have taken place at all! (I would actually think that those who died have it easier than the ones who ended up with deformed or nonfunctional organs due to botched circumcisions)

In any case, it is optional. A good doctor should always leave the choice to the parents. Outsider opinion on if it should be legal or not will probably always be circular until society as a whole decides one way or another.

Your statement sounds intended to stop debate, which would stop society from deciding anything.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by blue skies

DISCLAIMER: I'm a lady and probably don't have much business inserting my viewpoints here. BUT!

The thing is, parents are just trying to do what they think is best for their kids. People who get their sons circumcised aren't thinking, "oh hey let's chop up his penis lol." They think (as most people have already said) that it'll remove any hygiene issues (bad excuse yes shh I know) and could possibly help prevent cancer later in life, or have it done because it's been done to them and they never had problems so if it's good enough for them, then by God... They're considering the benefits of the procedure; they don't see it as a violation or mutilation, just a precautionary measure a lot of people choose to take.

Actually, most parents who choose to circumcise do not do it for health reasons, they see the minimal health benefits as an excuse, they do it for religious reasons or because the father "wants his son to look like him," or because they are under the impression that chopping off a body part that all males are born with is what most other people do.

Of course there are some risks involved too, but from what I've been told by friends and relatives who have children is they feel the benefits outweigh everything else. As far as sex goes, being circumcised doesn't ruin it for you or anything like that; I have yet to hear a guy complain that sex is bad because his parents had him circumcised as a baby. Then again, they wouldn't know if sex is any better if you're uncircumcised, but it certainly doesn't seem to inhibit them in any way. In short, Parents are just trying to make life a tiny bit easier for their son. Chances are, the kid's going to grow up perfectly normal and well, not care too much one way or the other.

However, testimony from those circumsized as adults do show less sensation. Just because guys cut as babies don't know what they are missing is no excuse.

My boyfriend and all three of my brothers were circumcised; if you told them their rights had been taken away and they'd been violated and mutilated akin to some poor circumcised African girl, you'd probably get a few funny looks and raised eyebrows. It simply doesn't matter to them (and frankly most other people) whether they've been cut or not. Personally, if I have a son, I think I'd be more in favor of having him circumcised. It's definitely something I'll put a lot of thought into and I could easily change my mind, but simply knowing that it can be beneficial (if only minutely) and after reading Mystique's very informative post, I lean more towards having it done. Something tells me my hypothetical son won't care and won't hate his father and I for mutilating his genitals when he grows up.

I'm glad the guys around you are comfortable about themselves. However, there are also many who regret that they were cut as babies, before they had a choice. Why not let your hypothetical son decide for himself when he's old enough to understand?

tl;dr if you think it's despicable slimy scummy whatever, that's just swell. But don't condemn parents for trying to do what they honestly feel is in their child's best interests. It's relatively minor and chances are, the kid won't care.

Some parents also choose not to vaccinate their kids. Just because they feel one way or another doesn't make them right. If circumcision was so beneficial, then explain it to the boy once he is older, and let them make the decision, nothing to lose!

[Narona]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Actually, most parents who choose to circumcise do not do it for health reasons, they see the minimal health benefits as an excuse, they do it for religious reasons or because the father "wants his son to look like him," or because they are under the impression that chopping off a body part that all males are born with is what most other people do.

I don't really want to debate about it, but some people claim that it's good as a minimal health benefit, but we should not forget that there is also a minimal risk that things could turn wrong.

I think the odds for something bad to happen is very little, but if it is apparently (i am not an expert on this topic) said that it can cause things like glans necrosis, then it's because it happened to at least a few people.

*I* personally will not even think about circumcision if I ever had a son. I prefer to make a lot of effort to try to educate him about keeping it clean, than taking the risk (even if it's 0.001%) to cause him a problem if he is in perfect health. I don't like the idea of excision and circumcision to begin with.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

And you thought wrong, didn't you? The fact that foreskin restoration surgery exists proves that there are men who realized that their tools were neither natural nor complete, and do complain about it.

It exists? Wonderful! How many people make use of it, and percentage-wise do those people make up a significant amount of circumcised males? What's their reason for going through with it?

Just because it exists doesn't mean much on its own. For all we know, it was researched by guys who are not circumcised and who figured that circumcised males must wish that they still had their foreskin (and if you have yours, of course you'd figure that someone without it would be missing it). That's a business opportunity, yeah? But if a very small number of people get it done, then I wouldn't say that it's a good indication that many circumcised males wish that they had their foreskin back.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

So? It's still a preventable death rate (just don't have unnecessary surgery).

It's a preventable death rate, true. What we can never know, however, is how many lives circumcision has saved, whether it be from cancer (which is rare) or UTIs (which, despite being very treatable, is still a cause of death in developed countries - albeit a relatively rare one).

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I don't condemn the victims... just the parents. Would you be okay with parents who choose to have their healthy non-deformed babies undergo cosmetic surgery just so they look how they want them to be?

You're comparing an aesthetic operation with something that is not done for aesthetic purposes, and you're attempting to appeal to emotions based off of that. It's not a fair comparison.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Why is that necessary? Urine is sterile, unlike shit, and it can wait until a guy takes his daily shower. And if you pull back the foreskin a bit when you piss, it can be shaken clean like a cut penis. Not pulling back can make a mess, because it sprays all over.

Urine is sterile as it goes through the body, but that's where the sterility ends. Urine is a relatively good growth medium for bacteria. You have bacteria all over the surface of your skin (and you should - if you don't, you're open to developing problems). I'd imagine that to be the main reason why uncircumcised males have a greater incidence of UTIs.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It exists? Wonderful! How many people make use of it, and percentage-wise do those people make up a significant amount of circumcised males? What's their reason for going through with it?

Just because it exists doesn't mean much on its own. For all we know, it was researched by guys who are not circumcised and who figured that circumcised males must wish that they still had their foreskin (and if you have yours, of course you'd figure that someone without it would be missing it). That's a business opportunity, yeah? But if a very small number of people get it done, then I wouldn't say that it's a good indication that many circumcised males wish that they had their foreskin back.

Even one unhappy circumcised man is too many, because that is evidence that his rights and body had been subjected to a surgical procedure he did not agree to. Or are you arguing that nothing is wrong because only a few people are upset, and that a small group of people do not deserve protection?

It's a preventable death rate, true. What we can never know, however, is how many lives circumcision has saved, whether it be from cancer (which is rare) or UTIs (which, despite being very treatable, is still a cause of death in developed countries - albeit a relatively rare one).

So you're willing to subject an infant male to a known risk of either death or loss of penis, in order to protect against an admittedly rare risk of disease? What about removing a baby boy's nipples? Male breast cancer does exist, so why not remove another "unnecessary" body part while you're at it?

You're comparing an aesthetic operation with something that is not done for aesthetic purposes, and you're attempting to appeal to emotions based off of that. It's not a fair comparison.

Can you prove that parents circumcise their baby boys for health reasons, and not for religion, social pressure, or aesthetics? Even though circumcision has existed for longer than medical research itself?

Urine is sterile as it goes through the body, but that's where the sterility ends. Urine is a relatively good growth medium for bacteria. You have bacteria all over the surface of your skin (and you should - if you don't, you're open to developing problems). I'd imagine that to be the main reason why uncircumcised males have a greater incidence of UTIs.

Or it could be that there are unsanitary men who do not wash their uncut penises, or parents who have no idea how to wash their uncut baby boys. Whatever growth there is during the day is easily washed away, especially with antibacterial soap.

You still have not answered why parents should circumcise their baby sons, instead of waiting until they are old enough to give consent. Whatever health benefits there are will be the same right?

[Mystique]

*sits down with a bowl of popcorn*

So seriously, who of the circumcised lot wanna join me up here and chill, cause as far as I see it, we got a bunch of teens and young adults
(the reason I stress on age is because we've developed as far as humans to have our own thoughts and opinions and under social condition of 'free rights, freedom of speech and the right to do what i want with my body',)
they're telling us:
(Us = people who had changes to their body while they were babies)
what we're meant to think and feel.
Cause no matter what we tell them in truth, in 100%, in solid proof from our very own hearts and minds as "victims" of said "loss of free will" and "mutilation"...
They as young men with their foreskin intact know how we feel, they know how our way of thinking and perception on life and our attitudes to our parents because our bodies were slightly modified as babies, better than ourselves.

Thus the current cycle I saw in the entire page 4:
Red Team: Circumcised
Blue Team: Uncircumcised

Campaigning for the blue mainly, I see are
justsomeguy
Alchemist 007

Okay, let's quote a few questions from you guys:
Q. Why not let him decide for himself?
A. If I put a knife next to crotch, tell me what will you do? If I placed a knife at the tip of your glans, right this moment. Tiiiiiny sharp edge to cut ya, how do you feel?
Please envision it and tell me you feel 100%.
Shivers down your spine, right? A lot of uncircumcised men may like the beneficial idea of circumcision but shiver at the thought of sharp object next to penis.

People then talk of "psychological damage" - we've countered that time and time and time again and then the same blue team change their mind and go
'No it doesn't matter! It's still mutilation."
Whatever you toss at us, we answer you sincerely and then you go looking for another angle, which we answer that sincerely and then you return to an old angle.

Thus has created this cycle on page 4 here.
Blue team tries to place it on the equal level of female mutilation.
Solace as very nicely semi detailed what that involves.
Removal of clitoris (for one, there's more taken out)
HTF does that compare with removal of foreskin, which may I add blue team:
DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE FUNCTION OF YOUR PENIS SEXUALLY OR AS A TOOL TO GET RID OF WASTE!!

You can argue:
But he's not so sensitive for pleasure.
Circumcised can counter:
Dude, I could last longer than you for not being so sensitive like a girl and coming real fast. Also trust me, when I come, it probably feels just as damn good as it does for you.
Plus my dick doesn't change appearance when flaccid and then hard as much as an uncircumcised one does and sometimes girls say it looks a lil 'neater' too and are much happier to go down south.

Originally Posted by VVayfarer

I'm not condemning anyone, I just reminded that circumcision can, albeit rare, also have negative effects on health.

You're right, we didn't say there weren't.
But we countered this. The same decision a parent makes to inject something into their child's bloodstream in hope of keeping them safe, those injections have possibly have resulted in tens, perhaps thousands more side effects on mental and physical health than circumcision.
MMR jabs linked to autism?
Let the person decide if they want that jab or not to avoid the risk of worsening your child.
Everything carries a risk in life, everything.


Then this angle:
But you were mutilated as a baby! You didn't have a say in this!? Your parents didn't respect you.
(this is from what Narona said by she seeing it as a mark of respect that her parents didn't pierce her ears)
Narona, I don't see it as any less of a mark of respect for having my ears pierced at 4 months old.
I like having earrings.
As a kid, (4-7 ish) I could pick pretty designs. As a kid, I could wear "special" ones for like my birthday parties and stuff.
As a child aged 3-10, seriously, it's not gonna be
"I was mutilated!!! My body was changed as a baby and I had no say! I hate you!!"
(Makes me laugh when kids say that to their parents who actually are decent peeps trying to raise their child well. I'd have been slapped to hell and back for even thinking of trying to say such a thing.) xD
Rather as someone pointed out, it’s a case of me looking at you as a child narona, seeing that you have no earrings and going:
"Why aren't your ears pierced? You're weird."

And yes narona, I was generalising for the mass in terms of hygiene. I live in London, I’ve used public transport all my life. I could give you tens of horror stories of typical human conscious (or lack thereof) of when people sneeze, cough, blow their nose, spit in the street and do not clean up after themselves or on the buses and trains that we all share. I already mentioned the swine flu thing, we got radio ads telling us adults how to do the simplest of things, it’s pretty tragic.
I already compared the difference between female and male genital hygiene in my earlier posts, check it out. But a good deal of kids (or just teens who even fail to clean their rooms), even with parental education of 'wash your hands, do this, be tidy and neat' don't listen, don't follow.
Personally, us two would have to sneak into a male toilet to check out what goes down over there, but I'll trust Ledgem on that note.

Blue team is severely under estimating that human beings as a species adapt to whatever environment they are brought up with as babies.
What becomes natural to us and we're happy with and becomes part of our lifestyle for the first 10-15 years of being alive, we have people who've never walked our path of life, jumping in as teens and young adults with an adult mind and logic and then preaching the "What if" game.
(Cause the claim that we're meant to have been severely violated is failing hard, when red team peeps are like 'I feel fine.')

You can "what if" any freaking thing in this planet.
You can be stuck in the past, you can waste your life regretting what has changed (not lost. No foreskin is not a "loss")
It's a change.

A change that you guys go:
"He can decide for himself."

No.
Only uncircumcised people can decide for themselves and have to lament and cringe at the thought of having a knife near their penis.
Only uncircumcised men have to bear and endure the memory of going through this operation.
(On the basis that it was done as a baby for circumcision)
Only uncircumcised men have can make the comparison as a young adult of what life was like before and after.

The rest of us are just cruising by, carrying on with life, never having to make this choice, hell we don't even have to think about it cause it's done and we're no worse off for it.

Truly, believe us blue team when we tell you, we're really no worse off and won't be suing our parents anytime soon for making a choice like this as part of our name, the vaccinations we've had or the beatings they gave us as a kid.
What i take into consideration is the 18 years my parents have tried their dammedest to give me a chance in life, have disciplined me, have educated me so I can survive on my own and be a decent human in society.

Something like circumcision or having my ears pierced doesn't even come into play in the "loss of free will and violation" game.
Really, it's trivial.

Justsomeguy says
"we've been violated cause our bodies were modified without our consent"
Really?

That's odd. I'm under the impression that girls treat getting their ears pierced as some sort of ritual to be proud of, meaning that they were old enough to know what they're getting. And to honest, a tiny hole is less drastic than removal of flesh.

And as someone said about Philippines, it's considered "being a man" to be circumcised.
Me personally, aren't for it as a boy whose aged 5+ cause of the fact that you're inflicted with the memory , but it shows that many look upon it, kids and adults alike (cultural and religiously) as something to be proud of.

But you sure are fine with girls having their ears pierced, which may I add falls under your claim of "having my body modified without my consent."
I got holes in my ears, they'll never heal as perfectly as narona's ears that have never been pierced.
Oh the hypocrisy.
Let's look at the word 'violate' shall we?

vi⋅o⋅late
  /ˈvaɪəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahy-uh-leyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
1. to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise, instructions, etc.).
2. to break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly with: to violate his privacy.
3. to break through or pass by force or without right: to violate a frontier.
4. to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; desecrate; profane: violate a human right.
5. to molest sexually, esp. to rape.

Well 1-3 aren't don't quite apply for this situation.
Definition 4?
Please blue team, cite from the Human Rights law that applies to all of us where it says:
"Parents have no right to make any form of modification to their child's bodies, including injecting them with anything until the child is of age 10, 13, 15 etc."

Definition 5?

Try talking to a kid who has been raped by one of said parents (real violation)
Who has been screamed at.
Who has been made to feel like their existence is worth nothing.
But hey.... at least their parents were respectful and kind enough to give them the free will to decide if they wanna be circumcised, whoopie.

"There are many guys who regret this" blue team say?
Based on what? Aesthetics?
And if we really wanna go down that path, how many regrets do we have as teens about a time when our parents forbade us to go somewhere or experience something?
Sure, we could try to attempt it as adults, but it's not quite the same is it?
Are you gonna lament for life and hate your parents or just get on with it and make the best of what you have in life for anything?
That's another thing that comes under parental education.
The way a child sees the world, their views and perceptions and philosophies tend to be heavily influenced by what your mother or father has told you, cause hell, they're your parents.

Most circumcised guys live their life fine as they are.
Most uncircumcised guys life their life fine as they are.
*shrugs*
All is fine with the world, I really don't see the drama.

The only thing I'd like to slam down is the perception of 'multination'
Solace has done a fine job of it, to be honest, we're talking to brick walls now. xD
The only way to really logically and sensibly settle that would be to explicitly detail what is taken from a baby boy and what is taken from a girl.

And then detail what both sides have lost as a result and detail what both sides have gained as a result.
Since both genders fall under the 'body modified without consent as a 0 year old' - it'll purely be to analyse the long term effects of said both procedures.

I'm fairly confident, even the guys both circumcised or not will feel and cringe for the girls who undergo this atrocity.
To do that however would require an 18+ forum. I don't think it can be explained any better than Solace has done.

Anyways *resumes sitting on fence*
(yes, yes, I know, more loss of my life on this topic, but this time it's just shooting down the supposed claims of said blue team that to be honest can apply to any damm thing in life)

PS: justsomeguy?
If scientific articles, wikipedia and personal experiences aren't enough for you as proof for parents doing so on the basis of medical/health reasons, please go visit a clinic or hospital where this is done without the religious or cultural influence and ask them. No one on this board is gonna convince you even if it was solid truth, and I mean that in a nice way.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Mystique

Then this angle:
But you were mutilated as a baby! You didn't have a say in this!? Your parents didn't respect you.
(this is from what Narona said by she seeing it as a mark of respect that her parents didn't pierce her ears)
Narona, I don't see it as any less of a mark of respect for having my ears pierced at 4 months old.
I like having earrings.
As a kid, (4-7 ish) I could pick pretty designs. As a kid, I could wear "special" ones for like my birthday parties and stuff.
As a child aged 3-10, seriously, it's not gonna be
"I was mutilated!!! My body was changed as a baby and I had no say! I hate you!!"
(Makes me laugh when kids say that to their parents who actually are decent peeps trying to raise their child well. I'd have been slapped to hell and back for even thinking of trying to say such a thing.) xD
Rather as someone pointed out, it’s a case of me looking at you as a child narona, seeing that you have no earrings and going:
"Why aren't your ears pierced? You're weird."

You're going all out

I am not going to argue much on the circumcision, I mainly wanted to give some infos on the legal view of it in France (plus some other things). I am not really ok with those who disregard the laws that can concern the case of Circumcision, but since there's a state tolerance about it, for now I will only feel concerned about my childrens...

About the ears, is your last sentence a joke or not ? ^^"

I encountered girls who made fun of me because I didn't pierce my ears, but I believed my mom that if i didn't do anything wrong, it is a wrong reason to do something just because of the other people. So, I never really cared about what the other girls think ^^;

I never criticized their choice either.

When I said that i see that as a mark of respect from my parents, I was talking only about me. I don't see you as somebody who was not respected. It's up to you to decide if what your parents did is good or not, I don't have the right to decide that for you, right?

And yes narona, I was generalising for the mass in terms of hygiene. I live in London, I’ve used public transport all my life. I could give you tens of horror stories of typical human conscious (or lack thereof) of when people sneeze, cough, blow their nose, spit in the street and do not clean up after themselves or on the buses and trains that we all share. I already mentioned the swine flu thing, we got radio ads telling us adults how to do the simplest of things, it’s pretty tragic.
I already compared the difference between female and male genital hygiene in my earlier posts, check it out. But a good deal of kids (or just teens who even fail to clean their rooms), even with parental education of 'wash your hands, do this, be tidy and neat' don't listen, don't follow.
Personally, us two would have to sneak into a male toilet to check out what goes down over there, but I'll trust Ledgem on that note.

I prefer not to, i am not that curious :3 Anyway, maybe it's just around me, but girls seem to care a lot more about hygiene than boys.

And I know that a big bunch of kids were not like me when it's about hygiene of the private parts, but I take my mother in account:

Spoiler for .:

This should be a good "representation" of her character

J/K >o< But she was strict about that, and explained why.

But you sure our fine with girls having their ears pierced, which may I add falls under your claim of "having my body modified without my consent."
I got holes in my ears, they'll never heal as perfectly as narona's ears that have never been pierced.
Oh the hypocrisy.
Let's look at the word 'violation' shall we?

I hope, you didn't think I was criticizing you about peircing ears? If so, sorry ^^;


Anyway, about injections, you do mean vaccination, I think? I have a rather bad view on it, as my parents'. Because as you said, some of them can have very bad side effects.

For example: the one about the Hepatitis B. My mother was not ok with it, and she was right, since we now know that it caused some serious diseases on a certain number of people.

[Knight Hawk]

*sits down with a bowl of popcorn*

So seriously, who of the circumcised lot wanna join me up here and chill, cause as far as I see it, we got a bunch of teens and young adults

Anyways *resumes sitting on fence*
(yes, yes, I know, more loss of my life on this topic, but this time it's just shooting down the supposed claims of said blue team that to be honest can apply to any damm thing in life)

Mystique you're not helping at all, you're whole post nothing but flaming and arrogant, in turn will just piss people off. Lastly about the whole "sensitive" issue; If your terrible in bed, being not so sensitive isn't going to help at all. *plays Missy Elliott's one minute man*

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Mystique

snip

You are completely ignoring the small amount of men who do in fact feel violated. This number of unhappy men would not exist if all circumcision is consensual, which I would have no problem with.

You also admit that no grown male would want sharp objects near their penis. So now we know why parents do it to their boys while they are infants. It is intentionally to go against their sons' natural desire not to have their penises damaged. You refuse to admit that intentionally circumventing a person's right to give or withhold consent for medical procedures is unethical, and a violation of his right to his own body.

As for statistics:
*rate of penile cancer in USA: 1 in 100000 (0.00001%) from American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision
*rate of circumcision complications: from 0.06% to 10% from Canadian Medical Association Journal and British Journal of Surgery
*death rate from circumcision: 1 in 500000 from American Academy of Family Physicians
*loss of penis from circumcision: 1 in 1000000 from Royal Australasian College of Physicians

[Alchemist007]

Err..well I only scanned that essay up there, I stand at 'decision by self later.'
I just find it an unnecessary procedure (again, without medical necessity part). In general, its been this way for the non-religious requirement community of humans, and it hasn't been trouble. Well I'll just leave off saying that I know what I'd want for any boys I'd have, and I'd make sure the damn doc/nurses hear me when I tell them not to do extra cutting.

[cheyannew]

I rather like Red, myself, I shall join the Red team, I suppose, at least to watch.

In all seriousness, is this a DISCUSSION, or has it merely become "I think I'm right you're wrong nyah"?

With the exact same things being said over and over it seems to have become a dead horse, IMO.

There are valid viewpoints for both "causes", they've been explained, can't we leave it at that?


-One of the "Mutilators", who would not do half of what she normally does to her partners you-know-what if she had to finagle with extra parts. I assure you, they don't complain.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by cheyannew

-One of the "Mutilators", who would not do half of what she normally does to her partners you-know-what if she had to finagle with extra parts. I assure you, they don't complain.

Interesting. It sounds like you've never been with an uncut guy, but for some reason you're already concluding that you'll do less for him. Do you even know what an uncut **** looks like?