http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/say-no.htm

Are you on some sort of anti-semetic kick?

Originally posted by jillianjiggs
Are you on some sort of anti-semetic kick?


Jiggs,
this practise is all over Africa.
Last month 19 died and 25 had to be saved in South Africa.

This kick is to be totally banned from all walks of life including the semitic.
It is a difference of " What is human and what is not"


Rugen

Originally posted by jillianjiggs
Are you on some sort of anti-semetic kick? Has nothing to do with anti-anything, except for anti-mutilation. Are you on some kind of dick-snipping kick?

we did a thread like this in the everything forum, and i was surprised how many girls said it was so unattractive not to be circumsized, even though they hadnt really seen Both kinds in real life, and how many guys said.. just do it when they're babies, I had it done as a baby, and i dont remember a thing.

I think it is totally unneccessary, especially if there is no meaning attached to the ceremony of it.

my personal opinion is that this thread is dumb.

i must've missed something, i dont get why is says, dont circumsize 'white' male babies?

I read somewhere that it during WW 2, US GIs who had their winkies circumcised were less likely to have venerial deseases. Did anyone else hear anything about this?

i saw a show on the learning channel that was correlating circumcision and aIds using african groups as their study subjects.
(because Some tribes circumsize and some dont.)

Oh yeah! so check this out... there are these little organs in foreskin, and their ONLY job is to attach to foreign things, like bacteria and viruses, and take them straight to the Lymph nodes, so they can be dealt with, with the immune system.

Kinda like a security guard taking someone to the 'head' office. So if you are circumsized you dont have this specialized tissue, and it's harder for a male to get certain kinds of diseases.

Originally posted by turtle_o
i must've missed something, i dont get why is says, dont circumsize 'white' male babies? Just look at who posted this thread to find out......

My fiance and my brother(no I've never seen it, I just know my parents had it done to him) are fine, have no problems what so ever. I Have seen both and uncircumsized are less attractive. As for the use of condoms on circumsize males, that is a personal decision. The fact that it is more prone to disease tends to be higher because there are folds of skin that trap bacteria just like being female. You just learn to keep yourself clean. As for wether or not to have it done, that would be the sole responsibility and decision of the parent and how that relates to their opinions.

Originally posted by tam
my personal opinion is that this thread is dumb.

one mans trash is another ones treasure.

Originally posted by tam
my personal opinion is that this thread is dumb.
:werd:

Originally posted by Midnight

:werd: :werd:

Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts
one mans trash is another ones treasure.

"Are you gonna throw away those penis trimmings?" :D

Originally posted by chickadee923
The fact that it is more prone to disease tends to be higher because there are folds of skin that trap bacteria just like being female. .

it isnt because of the folds trap bacteria, it's because there is an organelle in the inner fold of the skin, that brings foreign organism like bacteria and viruses right to the lymph nodes.... to be taken cared of by the immune system.

I think circumcism should be mandatory.

Originally posted by chickadee923
As for wether or not to have it done, that would be the sole responsibility and decision of the parent and how that relates to their opinions.
I could start up a cult religion and have a bunch of 9 fingered freaks, saying that since there are 11% less fingers, they're less prone to infection and disease, less nails to chew, and less knuckles to crack, so therefore lesser chances of arthritis.

Its true. I've also heard that you can get dirt under your fingernails and die. One time this guy stuck his fingers into a jar of smallpox, and he got smallpox because he had an extra finger. If he had 9 fingers, he would have been 11% less likely to get smallpox.

Care to join our cult? You know, because you're totally a sane person, and you know what's best for your kid. In 20 years from now, it'll be the craze, and everyone will have 9 fingers, because 10 is just too disgusting and unsightly.

Before you know it, people will have 8 fingers, because there's a 12.5% lesser chance of infection and disease over 9, and 20% over 10, plus, it looks better and more even with only 4 on each hand. Mickey Mouse has 4 on each hand, as does Bugs Bunny.

dont forget those guys from the simpsons, patricio.

Originally posted by Diabhal
I think circumcism should be mandatory.

why?

Because I wouldn't want that thing running after ants.

? --i feel so blonde right now. :confused:

Slayr, that should be 10% then 20%. When working out a percentage you divide by the original number :|

Mine is intact :| Ain't no knives coming near my groin, Goddamnit!

Originally posted by jillianjiggs
Are you on some sort of anti-semetic kick?
Circumcision implies that one is either or both A. of Jewish Extraction, and or B. the child of parents who thought that circumcision was of benefit from a health standpoint. I oppose circumcising infants, but I've nothing against Jewish people. Quite the opposite, they are my elder brothers in the faith, and I love them. If Jewish people want to circumcise their children, that still sounds as though they're violating that child's civil rights, but I don't really want to be seen as being anti-Jewish, so I'll just hope that everyone considers leaving their children's penises alone, and I might also try to ban circumcision at some point in the future if I ever have the power to do that sort of thing. And I might try to influence others to refrain from circumcising their children. Nothing to worry about, though.:D

I can't believe I'm sitting here reading this

who cares about the white males.

I wasn't circumcised until my early twenties and I wish I never did it. The difference when having sex is night and day, because the sensation was drastically reduced.:(

if it is done as a child, who cares? I don't

I don't really see the point of this. A parent is going to do what they want

now, if you are older and want to have it done.......uhhh... I dunno about that. I think my answer would be no then

Originally posted by Kraw
if it is done as a child, who cares? I don't
I think it's a matter of refraining from mutilating your children because of health concerns which may or may not be well founded and or a certain religion.
I don't really see the point of this. A parent is going to do what they want
I think that history shows that we can influence people's thinking if we talk about issues, and even more so if we pass and or repeal laws. Parents seem less likely to beat their children now, I think, as a result of a lot of discussion and some well written laws. It took a--while, but the effect of all of our talking on that particular subject seems demonstrable, whether one supports corporal punishment or does not support it.
now, if you are older and want to have it done.......uhhh... I dunno about that. I think my answer would be no then
I wouldn't be circumcised now, if I could help it, I suspect. Ouch! Yep, no circumcision for this white male, my Jewish sympathies notwithstanding.

Ummmm...kinda, like, too late for some of the gents to reconsider here about this, eh?

**shrug**

is obviously a jewish plot to destroy the sex lives of white men.

Originally posted by knave
is obviously a jewish plot to destroy the sex lives of white men. Or an arab one, against non-circumsized men!

Originally posted by WharfDog
I wasn't circumcised until my early twenties and I wish I never did it. The difference when having sex is night and day, because the sensation was drastically reduced.:(

WHY DID YOU DO THAT!?!:eek:

...and dont tell me 'for a girl'

Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts


"Are you gonna throw away those penis trimmings?" :D


My dad had mine planted between the carrots and with loads of compost.
My "clone" is a ruined brune.:D

Rugen

who cares about the white males.

The last time I heard that statement was just before my government legislated its "affirmative action" laws.

Originally posted by supportTHEezln
who cares about the white males. Who cares about anyone?:cool:

Originally posted by Diabhal
Who cares about anyone?:cool:
:werd:

I think that it should be a personal choice, for the boy. If he seems to be prone to infection, ect it would be his choice to get it done, but removing something that many cultures have lived with successfully for generations just because that is the way it is done is sick. Its a bit like female circumsion just culturally acceptable. But FC is another topic entirely.

This topic just won't die will it???

This topic just won't die will it???


Frankly, I can't say which is more horrifying, the practice itself, or the callous disinterest shown the issue by DAers like you, Sawbones.

1) Circumcision hurts. People have this idiotic idea that babies or animals don't feel pain simply because they are incapable of expressing their feelings like adult humans.

2) Circumcision is carried out without consent. What if it was customary to remove the hair follacles from babies' heads in order to make them grow up bald? Hair is arguably a health risk and an impediment to athletic ability, but if someone made that decision for you, wouldn't you be justifiably upset? If this is something you want to do to yourself, feel free, but surgically alerting other people "for their own good" is a violation of their humanity.

3) As noted, circumcision decreases sexual pleasure. This point speaks for itself.

People need to wake up and realize that the involuntary circumcision of newborn babies is a vile practice and should be stamped out.

--Mark

Anything involuntary should be stopped. however I am glad I am circumsied and if my mother hadnt decided to do it as a child I would go have it done soon as i could have when i was legal. And the loss of sexual sensation things is BS to me. I enjoy it just fine.. :D

I enjoy it just fine.


While I'm glad you agree with me about the involuntary part, you aren't one to talk. If you've never known the difference, how would you be able to say that circumcision did or did not reduce sexual pleasure?

--Mark

Originally posted by NachtWolf

involuntary circumcision of newborn babies is a vile practice and should be stamped out.


personally i find it much much worse what muslims do, since it's at age 13 ( i think ). Talk about hurting.........

I have pictures of my briss and minutes after they did it I stopped crying. Who are you to oppose someone's religious beliefs though? This has been going on forever and i hardly believe that outsiders opposing it it gonna do anything. What's next? Opposing the ramadan because it's politically incorrect to 'starve'?

I'd say, if they wanna do it because of their religious beliefs, let them... but hey, i'm an eagletarian or whatever, so i'm wrong, somehow

If it is done by the parents i dont consider it involuntary at all so I dont think parents should lose the right to chose. Until the child is of age they mae all his important decisions and this is just one more in a string of millions they will make. Whatever the parent decides is best is what should be done. And no I dont know if it reduced sensation but I dont care. i enjoy it enough as it is and if it got better i prolly wouldnt enjoy sex as much anyways. Too much pleasure can be pain man.. :)

personally i find it much much worse what muslims do, since it's at age 13 ( i think ). Talk about hurting...


Did you miss where I said "People have this idiotic idea that babies or animals don't feel pain simply because they are incapable of expressing their feelings like adult humans?"


I have pictures of my briss and minutes after they did it I stopped crying.


Babies usually go into shock, Tam.


Who are you to oppose someone's religious beliefs though?


A human being with a right to an opinion. Who are you to deny me that right?

I was told in high school that it's part of certain African religious tradition to circumcise females specifically in order to prevent them from ever knowing the pleasure of sex. This is sadistic. I'm going to respect anyonewho promotes that just because they can cry, "this is our religion."


If it is done by the parents i dont consider it involuntary at all... Until the child is of age they mae all his important decisions...


Does this right to make decisions extend to child abuse? Where do you draw the line? I see surgically altering someone else's body as mutilation. By this reasoning, circumcision is merely a culturally acceptible form of child abuse.

--Mark

Well I figure it isnt mutilation and there are more doctors than naught who will urge you to get it done because it is easier for a baby and safer to care for. I knwo ya are prolly gonna be posting links to long articles that disagree with me, however I worked as a nurse and did both pediatrics and OB GYN in a hospital and have first hand knowledge from personal experience. I think a parent making the choice is in no way committing child abuse. it is surgical alteration based on religious and or hygenic reasons and I support the parents right to make the decision. As to child abuse I think a child is a parents to raise. i know many people who think anything more strict than time out is child abuse so ya need to be a bit more specific. There are no clear cut explanations as to what child abuse is. I feel dicipline should fit the crime commited. And I strongly support a sever a$$ beating rather than a parent turning their kids into hooligans. If it isnt taken overboard and turne into regular systematic beatings and stuff then yeah i support diciplining a child by spankings and so forth and so on. After a certain age I think people should also mind their business about it. When I was like 14 My dad and I got in a fight. i deserved everything I got outof i bacause I had done some rude disrespectful and potentially financially disruptful things. I provoked the fight also. however even though I started it he could still have gone to jail for child abuse. I think thats ridiculous also..

I knwo ya are prolly gonna be posting links to long articles that disagree with me


Why bother? Your mind is clearly made up. I don't think you have the capacity to understand that just because you grow up with something, and just because everyone takes it for granted as "normal," doesn't mean that it must be OK.

--Mark

Um ok I am sick of being talked down to tonight. i have the capasity to understand a lot of things. What I chose to believe after having seen both sides of an argument however is my business. No need to get into the name calling or talking down to phase. I have the opinions I have after being trained in the medical field and knowing the beliefs of Doctors Nurses and a good number of parents who have experienced both sides of the situation. Why is it anyone with a differing view is automatically stupid to some people here???

I just want to add that there is a huge difference between doing it at birth, and at age 13. A newborn baby is running on instinct, there's is nothing conscious about it, nor will they remember the event. A 13 year old is fully developed and things like this could cause trauma and mental problems. But not in a baby.

On a sidenote, do you consider it abuse if a parent pierces their daughters ears while they're young children/babies?

And just so you know, I'm fully aware of what you're saying, I just don't agree with you...

Why is it anyone with a differing view is automatically stupid to some people here???


Shelter, you don't give the slightest impression that you undesrand why I'm saying any of this. Unlike Tam.


And just so you know, I'm fully aware of what you're saying, I just don't agree with you...


The fact that you claim you understand me doesn't make it so, but you certainly do give the impression that you're following where I'm coming from. I will be the first to admit that this is an extremely minor issue. The only thing I really have a problem with is the sleepy "who cares" attitude of the DAers combined with a general failure to immediately see what I'm saying.

I talked to someone last night who said he saw nothing wrong with murder. I have no problem with this; he doesn't have the kind of conventional morality most people have. If Shelter told me that he saw nothing wrong with the mutilation of children, I could accept that as well. But cutting off pieces of other people's bodies - altering them in permanent ways - is the best example for mutiliation I can think of, and I really don't think Shelter gets it. He assumes that simply because it's being done in this clinical atmosphere it isn't mutilation.

Also to answer your question, Tam, I wouldn't say it's mutilation to pierce a child's ears before they're old enough to tell you what they want - that can heal. You don't get foreskin back, and I know people who wish they still had theirs. They never had the chance to make that choice.

--Mark

I definatly see what it is you are saying. My point is that it is a parents decision. if the parent decides to have it done it is their right and I support it completely. I also agree with having it done for other reasons, IE cosmetic and health issues. Thats my opinion. because I feel that just as strongly as you feel your side of it doesnt mean I am not understanding. Its all a matter of opinion. I dont consider it mutilation. i do think however that a child should be able to decide for himself about it after the whole newborn infant and small child phase is over. Once hit the 13 age range I feel it should be their choice. If it is done before then I fully support the parents being the final say in it.

By this line of reasoning it would be okay for parents to decide to surgicly remove the last joint on their son's index fingers at birth without anesthesia. I don't think you believe that this is OK, Shelter, and I still don't think you're understanding my points.

--Mark

As I said earlier I dont consider Circumcision to be mutilation i feel it is a valid medical procedure. I dont feel mutilation is ok and yes I do understand what you are saying i am simply stating i disagree. I dont fel the parents should be able to cut off a leg or an arm or anything ridiculous i do feel that they should be able to have a medical procedure done to their child if they feel it is the right thing to do. if it was overly detrimental to the child it wouldnt be allowed in the first place.

Removing the joint of a finger is a medical procedure (or rather a surgical one) just like circumcision. The only real distinctions between them are 1. You don't personally care about your foreskin but do care about your index finger joins, and 2. Just about everyone has been circumcised, which in your mind makes it OK.

--Mark

No actually the distinctions are that a circumcison is a valid procedure done for a purpose while removing a joint on an index finger is nothing more than a cosmetic surgery if anything. It isnt a valid medical procedure if it serves no purpose.
I am sick of you assuming that because it is widly accepted is the reason I chose to support the choice. Did you not read the post I made in here about being a nurse? i have first hand personal experience and knowledge about it and I base my opinions on my life experiences not popular culture.

I am sick of you assuming that because it is widly accepted is the reason I chose to support the choice.


This isn't an assumption. It's the only reasonable explanation I can find, since "the distinctions are that a circumcison is a valid procedure done for a purpose while removing a joint on an index finger is nothing more than a cosmetic surgery if anything" is a totally fallacious statement.


Did you not read the post I made in here about being a nurse?


Of course I did. It's the source of my belief that you think cricumcision is okay because it's currently done. I'm sure the doctors in makeup companies who tested cosmetics on animals felt the same way about their methodology.

--Mark

OK so I know for a fact why children are circumcised. What is the medical point of removing a joint on a finger without need? A circumcision is warranted because there are less cleanliness issues and less instance of infections in small babies and tottlers. What does removing the joint do exactly that is a medical beefit? It serves no point other than cosmetic pleasure which means it isnt a medical but a cosmetic surgery. BEcause I chose to understand your point and yet disagree though i obviosly dont understand you and have to base all my opinions on what others think. If you go through life this narrowminded it causes problems night wolf. Hows about you just accept that i understand and disagree, and can argue my point just as you argue yours???

You are obfuscating the issue. The fact that the parents might have reasons to want to cut off a piece of their child is immatereal.

Circumcision permanently alters a humans body, which is mutilation. It's carried out without anathesia, which is cruel. And in every case where it has been carried out on someone who was sexually active before the operation and is in a position to talk about it, it decreases sexual pleasure.

You have failed to overturn any of these points, but have instead simply argued "Well it's justified because..." I could justify the mass slaughter of humans with low IQs as having a tremendously positive eugenic effect on the gene pool, but that won't make it right.

I'm tired of discussing this with you. My patience has run out. Feel free to carry on the discussion in my absence.

--Mark

I must say your absense wont be felt here either. I have stated that both from personal and medical reasons I agree with it. There is nothing more to say. What more do you need?? Permenatly altering the body isnt mutilation. If that were the case then any surgery where something is removed such as a historectomy or apendectomy is mutilation. They arent. They are medical prcedures done for a specific health and care reason.
As is a circumcision. And if you say that in every single case where it has been done on a sexually active person it has caused loss of sexual sensation where is your proff? You have personally talked to every person who has had it done ?? If you have then I would be happy to believe that statement.
Now I am sorry that while debating you get angry and I am sorry that people disagreeing with you on an issue you feel strongly about is enough to make you lose interest or resort to insulting intelligence. That really sucks for you. hopefully youll get over that and not have to get personal in your arguments. Argue the point and not the person.

Circumcision is actually an ancient Egyptian practice that was adopted by the Jewish slaves and transformed into a part of their ritualistic cult known as Judaism. It is standard practice in America for health purposes.

Originally posted by Shelter
I have stated that both from personal and medical reasons I agree with it. There is nothing more to say.

The problem is that your personal reason is very subjective in allowing parents to mutilate a healthy body part that contains a lot of nerve endings for no apparent reason is not ethical. The medical reasons are not strong. If it was to prevent complications of infection, then pediatritians would be extracting all easily removable body parts, like the tonsils of every child.

Permenatly altering the body isnt mutilation.

The exact oppoiste is basically the definition of mutilation. Fortunately is it possible to regrow the skin to some extent.

Originally posted by Miguel
Circumcision is actually an ancient Egyptian practice that was adopted by the Jewish slaves and transformed into a part of their ritualistic cult known as Judaism. It is standard practice in America for health purposes.

I think one of the original purposes must have been so people spend less time engaging in sexual activity and do more productive things, so it did have an advantageous side effect. No that we know better, this barbaric procedure should be avoided.

I'm glad I'm snipped. If I ever had a boy (here's to hoping I don't), I'd snip him too.

I'm sorry but just because a guy is circumcised does not mean he is deformed, mutilated or anything. I've seen both, and the boyfriend I have now is circumcised and trust me, the operation has not affected his ability to preform in any way. What is the big deal?

Originally posted by igofast
I'm glad I'm snipped. If I ever had a boy (here's to hoping I don't), I'd snip him too.

Me too. Both my boys are. Why is it such a big deal? It looked like a little cheerio.