|
On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts.
Some women prefer uncut penises. If a women thinks normal penises are 'icky' then why is she sleeping with your son? She has no appreciation or acceptance for a man's natural body parts given to him by nature.
|
On September 09 2011 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:15 Harrow wrote:On September 09 2011 12:11 Cedstick wrote:
I wouldn't consider it a flaw, I'd consider it a -- in my case -- medical decision. Quick, chop out the kid's appendix, doesn't serve any real purpose and could cause health complications down the road. Yeah, there are medical justifications for it. But when else do people perform permanent disfigurements as a pre-emptive medical procedure? If the foreskin is causing some problem, by all means, remove it. I still haven't seen any rational reason why it should happen otherwise in the developed world. Appendix has no religious significance. Has no aesthetic change if removed. Has no traditional sense established. Costs a lot, achieves nothing if removed. If you can prevent the foreskin causing problems, why not do it before-hand when the child cannot retain the memory or the potential (if any) pain. It's hypothetical, not my stance (or is it?)
No foreskin creates more complications than having foreskin.
Oh no, smegma! How will he go without showering for 3 weeks!
|
On September 09 2011 12:16 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:12 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:09 matjlav wrote:On September 09 2011 12:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:04 matjlav wrote:On September 09 2011 12:03 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:01 RockIronrod wrote:On September 09 2011 11:59 Torte de Lini wrote:
In the end, tough luck. It's my child and I get to decide if he gets a circumcised penis or not.
Selfish? You bet?
Bullshit? Uh-huh.
Completely repulsive? Ask his future girlfriend(s)
Unfair? Ha, maybe.
Bad parenting? Yes, let's define the entirety of my potential in parenting based on a decision I took away from a barely conscious child.
I'm sure every one of you hate seeing your penis have a head. ):
I gave my rationale, even from the outer perspective its irrational, but I don't care, neither will the child (very likely) and nor will the world because no one will see it (in some rare occasion, they will). You know those rednecks who give their baby's tattoos or piercings and everyone is disgusted by them? You're unabashedly one of those now. Congratulations, here's your complimentary Insane Clown Posse shirt and "Half-dicked baby on board" car sticker. Thank you. I'm glad you're able to label someone based on one dimension of their decisions or views. You've done very well being equally as understanding as they very person you're bashing. Just because there is more than that one aspect to your parenting philosophy, that does not mean that this one given aspect is not incredibly stupid. It's like how I think it's incredibly wrong and stupid to bring children up believing that there's a God who will send them to Hell if they don't believe in him. I still know plenty of people who do that and are otherwise great parents. People have flaws. It's people who recognize these flaws and say "Yeah, I know it's a flaw, but fuck it" that I don't understand. Especially when that flaw is affecting other people around you. The flaw is minor in the grand scheme of things. You guys exaggerate and distort it heavily with general descriptions! YOURE CUTTING OFF A PART OF HIS PENIS Yeah, foreskin that plays no actual or significant role in the function of the body YOURE SO SHALLOW FOR DOING IT FOR COSMETIC REASON etc etc etc Yes, it's minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still a flaw. Why not correct it when this correction takes absolutely no effort on your part? Because I don't feel it'll be a problem for the child. I'm trying to really hard to see where a child might be bothered. That we made a decision for him? Yeah, so? We do that for a lot of things? That we took away a part of his penis? I have mine taken away too. It's also a part he's never seen or recognized as significant to be troubled over. That our intentions do not reflect his own? Mm, yes. This is true, but we had good intentions and given the above, I don't see why he'd throw a fit or tantrum. He's GOING to have the internet, if he ever hears about what was done to him and reads the studies on desensitivity then he'll probably be pretty pissed off. By the way the foreskin has thousands of nerve endings that all contribute to the pleasure of sex so your argument that it is useless is void.
I wouldn't say "probably" here. Just saying, as I've met a whopping zero people who dislike the fact that they are circumcised (for any reason). I know it's just personal experience, but yeah, throwing that out there.
|
On September 09 2011 12:15 Harrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:11 Cedstick wrote:
I wouldn't consider it a flaw, I'd consider it a -- in my case -- medical decision. Quick, chop out the kid's appendix, doesn't serve any real purpose and could cause health complications down the road. Yeah, there are medical justifications for it. But when else do people perform permanent disfigurements as a pre-emptive medical procedure? If the foreskin is causing some problem, by all means, remove it. I still haven't seen any rational reason why it should happen otherwise in the developed world.
Well, as I said earlier, I personally look down and think, "hey, I like the look better than the original, and every girl I've been with thinks the same," and then I think about how I've never had to worry about foreskin-related infections, and I thank my parent's for their decision. As literal a "disfigurement" it may be, I don't see it that way at all. There are more common complications in birth, which could result in death, so a medical choice with a "one-in-a-million" chance of complications doesn't seem to big a deal for what I see as a benefit.
|
On September 09 2011 12:16 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:12 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:09 matjlav wrote:On September 09 2011 12:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:04 matjlav wrote:On September 09 2011 12:03 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:01 RockIronrod wrote:On September 09 2011 11:59 Torte de Lini wrote:
In the end, tough luck. It's my child and I get to decide if he gets a circumcised penis or not.
Selfish? You bet?
Bullshit? Uh-huh.
Completely repulsive? Ask his future girlfriend(s)
Unfair? Ha, maybe.
Bad parenting? Yes, let's define the entirety of my potential in parenting based on a decision I took away from a barely conscious child.
I'm sure every one of you hate seeing your penis have a head. ):
I gave my rationale, even from the outer perspective its irrational, but I don't care, neither will the child (very likely) and nor will the world because no one will see it (in some rare occasion, they will). You know those rednecks who give their baby's tattoos or piercings and everyone is disgusted by them? You're unabashedly one of those now. Congratulations, here's your complimentary Insane Clown Posse shirt and "Half-dicked baby on board" car sticker. Thank you. I'm glad you're able to label someone based on one dimension of their decisions or views. You've done very well being equally as understanding as they very person you're bashing. Just because there is more than that one aspect to your parenting philosophy, that does not mean that this one given aspect is not incredibly stupid. It's like how I think it's incredibly wrong and stupid to bring children up believing that there's a God who will send them to Hell if they don't believe in him. I still know plenty of people who do that and are otherwise great parents. People have flaws. It's people who recognize these flaws and say "Yeah, I know it's a flaw, but fuck it" that I don't understand. Especially when that flaw is affecting other people around you. The flaw is minor in the grand scheme of things. You guys exaggerate and distort it heavily with general descriptions! YOURE CUTTING OFF A PART OF HIS PENIS Yeah, foreskin that plays no actual or significant role in the function of the body YOURE SO SHALLOW FOR DOING IT FOR COSMETIC REASON etc etc etc Yes, it's minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still a flaw. Why not correct it when this correction takes absolutely no effort on your part? Because I don't feel it'll be a problem for the child. I'm trying to really hard to see where a child might be bothered. That we made a decision for him? Yeah, so? We do that for a lot of things? That we took away a part of his penis? I have mine taken away too. It's also a part he's never seen or recognized as significant to be troubled over. That our intentions do not reflect his own? Mm, yes. This is true, but we had good intentions and given the above, I don't see why he'd throw a fit or tantrum. He's GOING to have the internet, if he ever hears about what was done to him and reads the studies on desensitivity then he'll probably be pretty pissed off. By the way the foreskin has thousands of nerve endings that all contribute to the pleasure of sex so your argument that it is useless is void.
I read it, I'm not pissed off. In fact, my stance remains almost unchanged (I am surprised that circumcised penises does not prevent or reduce HIV, etc. I can't recall the fact anymore).
How will the child know if the sensation of pleasure is significantly more to brood over the loss of his foreskin.
I hate to use this line, but why would he be troubled by something he never had at the start of his conscious life and sexual introduction?
|
On September 09 2011 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:15 Harrow wrote:On September 09 2011 12:11 Cedstick wrote:
I wouldn't consider it a flaw, I'd consider it a -- in my case -- medical decision. Quick, chop out the kid's appendix, doesn't serve any real purpose and could cause health complications down the road. Yeah, there are medical justifications for it. But when else do people perform permanent disfigurements as a pre-emptive medical procedure? If the foreskin is causing some problem, by all means, remove it. I still haven't seen any rational reason why it should happen otherwise in the developed world. Appendix has no religious significance. Has no aesthetic change if removed. Has no traditional sense established. Costs a lot, achieves nothing if removed. If you can prevent the foreskin causing problems, why not do it before-hand when the child cannot retain the memory or the potential (if any) pain. It's hypothetical, not my stance (or is it?)
All surgery has risk. And removing foreskin is not exactly preventative medicine -- that's sort of like, removing boobs to prevent breast cancer.
|
why is this such a big deal, nobody cares what your penis looks like. /thread please.
|
On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts.
Studies have been pasted all over this thread that show that women prefer whichever type of penis they're most accustomed to. There's no universal beauty standard for penises. (which all look hilariously stupid, by the way.)
If you have a daughter, are you considering taking her for breast implants when she hits puberty? Because, you know, dudes like big bewbs, amirite?
|
On September 09 2011 12:19 Brutaxilos wrote:
why is this such a big deal, nobody cares what your penis looks like. /thread please.
People are mutilating babies at birth. That is a problem.
|
On September 09 2011 12:17 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Some women prefer uncut penises. If a women thinks normal penises are 'icky' then why is she sleeping with your son? She has no appreciation or acceptance for a man's natural body parts given to him by nature.
A penis isn't art. This idea of appreciation and nature's gift is an exaggeration.
|
I really find the argument of what women prefer strange, if the boy in question has no say in the decision. Most men prefer large breasts, should we have breast surgery on young girls without their consent too?
|
On September 09 2011 12:20 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:17 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Some women prefer uncut penises. If a women thinks normal penises are 'icky' then why is she sleeping with your son? She has no appreciation or acceptance for a man's natural body parts given to him by nature. A penis isn't art. This idea of appreciation and nature's gift is an exaggeration.
It looks aesthetic, so it's better to cut it.
Some women prefer it uncut though.
FUCK OFF NO ONE CARES HOW IT LOOKS
|
On September 09 2011 12:19 Harrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Studies have been pasted all over this thread that show that women prefer whichever type of penis they're most accustomed to. There's no universal beauty standard for penises. (which all look hilariously stupid, by the way.) If you have a daughter, are you considering taking her for breast implants when she hits puberty? Because, you know, dudes like big bewbs, amirite?
Not sure why you're telling me about studies, how is that relevant to my statement above?
Not all men like big breasts or fake ones.
|
You realise you could buy an alright sized tv for the money your wasting on chopping your babies penis up? You could get like 4 years worth of GOMtv passes!! Thats more convincing than any other arguments in this thread
|
On September 09 2011 12:19 Brutaxilos wrote:
why is this such a big deal, nobody cares what your penis looks like. /thread please.
For some, it's more the mutilation of a child without their consent argument.
|
On September 09 2011 12:21 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:20 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:17 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Some women prefer uncut penises. If a women thinks normal penises are 'icky' then why is she sleeping with your son? She has no appreciation or acceptance for a man's natural body parts given to him by nature. A penis isn't art. This idea of appreciation and nature's gift is an exaggeration. It looks aesthetic, so it's better to cut it. Some women prefer it uncut though. FUCK OFF NO ONE CARES HOW IT LOOKS
As long as it fits, right? ;D
|
On September 09 2011 12:21 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:19 Harrow wrote:On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Studies have been pasted all over this thread that show that women prefer whichever type of penis they're most accustomed to. There's no universal beauty standard for penises. (which all look hilariously stupid, by the way.) If you have a daughter, are you considering taking her for breast implants when she hits puberty? Because, you know, dudes like big bewbs, amirite? Not sure why you're telling me about studies, how is that relevant to my statement above? Not all men like big breasts or fake ones.
Not all women like cut dicks.
|
On September 09 2011 12:19 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:15 Harrow wrote:On September 09 2011 12:11 Cedstick wrote:
I wouldn't consider it a flaw, I'd consider it a -- in my case -- medical decision. Quick, chop out the kid's appendix, doesn't serve any real purpose and could cause health complications down the road. Yeah, there are medical justifications for it. But when else do people perform permanent disfigurements as a pre-emptive medical procedure? If the foreskin is causing some problem, by all means, remove it. I still haven't seen any rational reason why it should happen otherwise in the developed world. Appendix has no religious significance. Has no aesthetic change if removed. Has no traditional sense established. Costs a lot, achieves nothing if removed. If you can prevent the foreskin causing problems, why not do it before-hand when the child cannot retain the memory or the potential (if any) pain. It's hypothetical, not my stance (or is it?) All surgery has risk. And removing foreskin is not exactly preventative medicine -- that's sort of like, removing boobs to prevent breast cancer.
Except breasts have a bigger significant role than foreskin of a penis.
|
On September 09 2011 12:22 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:21 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:19 Harrow wrote:On September 09 2011 12:15 Torte de Lini wrote:
It's not shallow to find something unappealing. If the penis is sexually unappealing, some women won't have sex.
Yes, morally, they should have sex because they love the person. But removing the entire aesthetic interest or desire in love-making is ridiculous. There needs to be a physical attractiveness or acceptance on both parts. Studies have been pasted all over this thread that show that women prefer whichever type of penis they're most accustomed to. There's no universal beauty standard for penises. (which all look hilariously stupid, by the way.) If you have a daughter, are you considering taking her for breast implants when she hits puberty? Because, you know, dudes like big bewbs, amirite? Not sure why you're telling me about studies, how is that relevant to my statement above? Not all men like big breasts or fake ones. Not all women like cut dicks.
Where did I say they did?
|
On September 09 2011 12:20 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:19 Brutaxilos wrote:
why is this such a big deal, nobody cares what your penis looks like. /thread please. People are mutilating babies at birth. That is a problem.
Since when? Is it a social problem? Or a minor personal one?
It doesn't sound like a social one, so the personal issue should be decided on case by case basis by those involved.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
