|
On September 09 2011 12:41 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:35 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:34 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:29 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:28 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:26 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:24 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 12:23 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:19 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:
[quote]
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. Can you elaborate Breast-feeding Protection of the Glans and sexual pleasure. Penises function without the extra protection. Sexual pleasure is relative. This is so much fun ;D! I haven't done these back and forths since college! Oh so they 'function' now then? I guess I cut off your eyelids because hey, the eye functions FINE without them and after all, you can get stuff stuck in your eye and that's annoying. any other valid or possible reasons besides that? You're hopping alot. Ok, there are painful scars after a circumcision. It's here by evolution. The jewish circumcision is a bloodletting ritual. All you need to do by jewish laws is prick the penis and let blood flow. Then you still fulfill the requirements. The glans is supposed to be sensitive for a reason. Having a sensitive dick during sex is at least twice as good as having a tough skinned dick as testified by people I've talked to who have had sex in both ways.
All those people you talked to who had sex both ways? Given that probably is an extremely rare occurrence in the first place, I find it hard to believe you are not making up stuff to support your viewpoint. Have fun.
Oh, and why don't you follow your statement in the OP to "cut your losses" by stopping responding to the thread.
|
As someone who was circumcised as a child I don't have a feeling of inferiority to someone who wasn't circumcised, my father and mother told me that they circumcised me because my father was and they didn't want me to feel like I was different. I have very little scarring and almost no callous areas on my penis and I enjoy sex with my girlfriend.
In my opinion it should be up to the parents to decide whether they want their kids circumcised or not, its hard enough to be a good parent as it is and pressuring parents into thinking that they fucked their kid up for life by making a decision that the child won't remember and won't ever be able to know the difference.
Also there is some shitty math going on whatever website you are pulling this from. If HIV was prevented in 73 of 5,400 men that is 1.4% not 0.014% which is 100 times more than indicated and would mean that you would circumcise 71 men to save one, even though it still isn't statistically proof of the theory, but the graph about percentage of circumcision and sexual dysfunction is complete bullshit bias as well. I fail to see how ANY of the female categories have ANYTHING to do with circumcision and they just seem like cherry picked groups of people.
I am fairly neutral on the issue of circumcision, as the child won't ever remember the pain they felt and they won't be able to know how sex feels before being circumcised. I feel that whatever the parents decide is what should be done. I, in general, stand up for people's rights to decide to do what they want, and I dislike groups that tend to say no this is how it should be done especially when they can't do simple math or intentionally do it incorrectly to diminish counter arguments.
|
Circumcision: The Elephant in the Hospital. >
306 309 311 317 320 327 331 332 334 338 339 341 346 348 356 357 362 368 370 372 376 379 385 388 395 397 405 410 413 416 418 419 420 425 426 431 432 438 441 445 446 450 452 455 457
YARGH!
You forget that he will hear/read about some people who have experienced both and prefer the norm. He might not get to compare it himself but he'll still be upset because he'll never get to CHOOSE for himself.
Just don't do it, let him decide so he can't blame you. Like it or not he might do just that.
Oh no, I accounted for that and I feel he will be equally as open-minded as I am, yet mindful of how this issue is minor in view of his entire life.
I am fine with taking full responsibly for my actions and decisions set upon the child and if he resents me, then I accept that. I say this now, but in the future, who knows. I will keep all of this in mind though :3 (I intend to adopt, in which I case I won't forcefully circumcise. Now you see why I'm on the fence).
|
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.
The issue is that your decision is essentially meaningless until the child is of the age of sexual maturity, since the only remaining arguments are that it a) looks better to women (or men) who are going to thus be more likely to suckle on it, which shouldn't be happening till he's at least 15. and b) it's healthier (specificially in the area of STDs, nowhere else). Same issue. Don't matter one jot unless he's getting some.
So there is essentially no reason to do it to a child, not until they're like 14 or so at least. What you are saying by performing it on an infant is 'I do not trust the potential child of 14 to choose to make this decision when it is relevant, so I will take it from his control'
Understand that you are not taking a decision away from an infant, you are taking away a decision from your son, whoever he grows up to be. Imagine him in 15 years and look him in the eye and say 'I chose this for you 15 years ago when I didn't know who you'd be, what you'd think or whether you'd be ok with it if I asked you today, oh and it's about to start being relevant around now.'
|
On September 09 2011 12:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Personally, I am all for the government taking a more active role in legislating on the minutiae of parenting. What I would prefer is a big, fat, thoroughly researched handbook on how to raise, feed, clothe, and educate a child from conception to legal majority, a handbook from which it would be illegal to deviate. A nation's children ought to be more thoroughly protected from the ignorance and backwards practices of their mothers and fathers.
You're being sarcastic but any sociologist can tell you that a lot of poverty is concentrated among those who are disenfranchised from being born into bad situations -- such as abusive parents, broken families, and so forth.
So yes, we actually do need a handbook on how to properly raise children.
|
On September 09 2011 12:48 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:44 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:41 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:35 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:34 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:29 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:28 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 12:26 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:24 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 12:23 Torte de Lini wrote:
[quote]
Except breasts have a bigger significant role than foreskin of a penis. Can you elaborate Breast-feeding Protection of the Glans and sexual pleasure. Penises function without the extra protection. Sexual pleasure is relative. This is so much fun ;D! I haven't done these back and forths since college! Oh so they 'function' now then? I guess I cut off your eyelids because hey, the eye functions FINE without them and after all, you can get stuff stuck in your eye and that's annoying. any other valid or possible reasons besides that? You're hopping alot. Ok, there are painful scars after a circumcision. It's here by evolution. The jewish circumcision is a bloodletting ritual. All you need to do by jewish laws is prick the penis and let blood flow. Then you still fulfill the requirements. The glans is supposed to be sensitive for a reason. Having a sensitive dick during sex is at least twice as good as having a tough skinned dick as testified by people I've talked to who have had sex in both ways. Painful, how so? My child won't get to compare, why would he be bothered? Keep this around the idea of the child and his point of view. Will he truly be bothered of a decision made about his penis that he can't recall, is used to seeing, cannot compare the sexual pleasures and the difference in protection is irrelevant if nothing happens to it. The only issue I could see is that he rejects entirely the Jewish heritage of my father's side. But even then, if he disassociates the circumcision with the Jewish tangents, the sight of it being circumcised has an unlikely painful memory of any horrors from the religion I intend to raise him with to teach him good morals and values (to which he can establish his own values as he matures). All what ifs. A big shame you lose all respect of me ): I still respect you ~<3 You forget that he will hear/read about some people who have experienced both and prefer the norm. He might not get to compare it himself but he'll still be upset because he'll never get to CHOOSE for himself. Just don't do it, let him decide so he can't blame you. Like it or not he might do just that.
I wouldn't bother feeding him any further. All he does is blatantly flop between some sort of faux "no harm done" justification, followed by false assertions of benefits. He's just trying to out maneuver people as they introduce new semantics too hastily in an attempt to resolve his repetition.
"Ahhh but there's no harm done!"
"Yes there is [cite]"
"Ahh but there are benefits!"
"No medical board on the planet endorses circumcision [cite]"
"Ah hah!! but there's no harm done!"
ad nauseum
Lend us some more credit kinetik, the average TL poster has a much larger attention span than just the last 4 posts that this style of "debate" relies on. 
|
I could shred this post in many ways but I think I will just quote this incredibly baseless statement to highlight the many and various opinions being put forth as fact in the OP
"This engenders feelings of inferiority in Circumcised men.
This inferiority is a strong feeling in circumcised men. They don't want to be reminded of what they lost, so they circumcise their sons and convince themselves that being circumcised is normal"
How do you even respond to someone posting stuff like this as if its fact, using no sources, just making things up to support his view?
How is this thread even remaining open?
I just don't get it.
|
1. this thread is stupid
2. i am circumcised and why should i really care. if it has been studied to prevent certain diseases and a higher chance at others then go ahead as long as the parents agree with it. i dont know exactly why, but should i care why i was circumcised. i read the thread and it is extremely one-sided,also it is the Europeans that are against it more so arguing that it is inhumane, WTF. it is not mutilation of the penis, it is to help. if the infant has problems like urination issues or have a CHANCE at preventing diseases, go ahead as long as it is beneficial to the infant.
3. Seriously, how can we ask a 5 minute old infant whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
4. close this thread TL
|
I do agree with the fact that circumcision really is not a necessary process at all, and it is problematic to perform the process on an infant. I was circumcised as an infant. I don't have any problems with it, but I wouldn't ask for my male children to be circumcised.
That being said, your OP is hilariously painful to read because of your inane attempts at psychoanalysis.
|
On September 09 2011 12:52 Hipsv wrote:
As someone who was circumcised as a child I don't have a feeling of inferiority to someone who wasn't circumcised, my father and mother told me that they circumcised me because my father was and they didn't want me to feel like I was different. I have very little scarring and almost no callous areas on my penis and I enjoy sex with my girlfriend.
In my opinion it should be up to the parents to decide whether they want their kids circumcised or not, its hard enough to be a good parent as it is and pressuring parents into thinking that they fucked their kid up for life by making a decision that the child won't remember and won't ever be able to know the difference.
Also there is some shitty math going on whatever website you are pulling this from. If HIV was prevented in 73 of 5,400 men that is 1.4% not 0.014% which is 100 times more than indicated and would mean that you would circumcise 71 men to save one, even though it still isn't statistically proof of the theory, but the graph about percentage of circumcision and sexual dysfunction is complete bullshit bias as well. I fail to see how ANY of the female categories have ANYTHING to do with circumcision and they just seem like cherry picked groups of people.
I am fairly neutral on the issue of circumcision, as the child won't ever remember the pain they felt and they won't be able to know how sex feels before being circumcised. I feel that whatever the parents decide is what should be done. I, in general, stand up for people's rights to decide to do what they want, and I dislike groups that tend to say no this is how it should be done especially when they can't do simple math or intentionally do it incorrectly to diminish counter arguments.
Oh look, a rational anecdotal reasoning that seems likely and common.
Good for you, I support this entirely. This is how I see it and, tease me if you want, but I felt comfortable having the same kind of penis as my father. As a toddler, I showered with my father with my little brother and we all had the same kind of penises and I feel there is an inherent understanding that you want to be like your father in a shape or form.
|
Proposal to clean up discussion by ignoring people who:
1. Uses arguments from tradition
2. Believes routine cosmetic surgery on infants' genitals is acceptable, especially when rejected any form other than circumcision
3. Say as long as someone doesn't remember it, no harm no foul
4. Whine about people calling out their argument from tradition
5. Use psychoanalyzing unrelated to peer review
One is a clear fallacy, another is an attempt to be offended by people objecting to commenting on the fallacy, and the other two are propositions that if anyone took seriously would be absurd. The fifth was started by the OP and probably pisses off a lot of people before they post.
|
Circumcised male here.
absolutely no "inferiority" complex from it whatsoever .
I am actually thankful I was circumcised.
Such a silly claim there...maybe the OP is the one who is insecure?
|
On September 09 2011 12:58 Doomwish wrote:
Circumcised male here.
absolutely no "inferiority" complex from it whatsoever .
I am actually thankful I was circumcised.
Such a silly claim there...maybe the OP is the one who is insecure?
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant.
|
On September 09 2011 12:55 Nevermove wrote:
1. this thread is stupid
2. i am circumcised and why should i really care. if it has been studied to prevent certain diseases and a higher chance at others then go ahead as long as the parents agree with it. i dont know exactly why, but should i care why i was circumcised. i read the thread and it is extremely one-sided,also it is the Europeans that are against it more so arguing that it is inhumane, WTF. it is not mutilation of the penis, it is to help. if the infant has problems like urination issues or have a CHANCE at preventing diseases, go ahead as long as it is beneficial to the infant.
3. Seriously, how can we ask a 5 minute old infant whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
4. close this thread TL
1. No, this thread isn't. Fallacy of reification.
2. You might not care, but there are many others who do. Circumcision is indeed a remedy to some medical conditions, but in most cases, it is not done for such reasons. In fact, there are many people who have suffered from circumcision without consent.
3. Yes you are right, we can't ask infants, and that is precisely the point! Therefore circumcision of minors should be banned, and individuals should have the decision when they grow up.
4. No, leave it open.
|
Not sure how Jewish tradition and religious significance should be considered an ignorant reasoning.
|
I've so far sent 3 pms to mods requesting to close this.
Wtf?
|
On September 09 2011 12:36 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:On September 09 2011 12:28 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:26 RockIronrod wrote:On September 09 2011 12:23 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:20 RockIronrod wrote: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. Since circumsision started. Yes. No it is not minor. No, the idea of cutting baby dick in an agonizing procedure should not be decided on a case by case basis. A blanket "I'm calling child services you sick fuck" would suffice better. Any bills or decisions made by the government to regulate this or offer an alternative? Show me how it is not a minor issue. I can't figure it out. How do you how agonizing it is? Do you recall? Can a baby describe it to you? Thank god there's another sane person in this thread. I have no idea where people are getting this ridiculous idea that circumcision is this most heinous terrible thing. Seriously. No one is agreeing on whether it's better or worse to have it. People are throwing around "mutilation" because it's sensationalist. This thread is ridiculous. This is not like taking out the appendix (an invasive surgery ffs!). This is not like female genital mutilation. This is not fucking breast implants. Jesus. Except it is EXACTLY that.
what...?
circumcision is nothing like cutting off the clitoris man. Wtf are you talking about?
On September 09 2011 12:35 Phyrigian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:On September 09 2011 12:28 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:26 RockIronrod wrote:On September 09 2011 12:23 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 09 2011 12:20 RockIronrod wrote: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. Since circumsision started. Yes. No it is not minor. No, the idea of cutting baby dick in an agonizing procedure should not be decided on a case by case basis. A blanket "I'm calling child services you sick fuck" would suffice better. Any bills or decisions made by the government to regulate this or offer an alternative? Show me how it is not a minor issue. I can't figure it out. How do you how agonizing it is? Do you recall? Can a baby describe it to you? Thank god there's another sane person in this thread. I have no idea where people are getting this ridiculous idea that circumcision is this most heinous terrible thing. Seriously. No one is agreeing on whether it's better or worse to have it. People are throwing around "mutilation" because it's sensationalist. This is not like taking out the appendix. This is not like female genital mutilation. This is not fucking breast implants. Jesus. This is a thread about circumcision. You're taking one side of the debate and you're saying in a thread about circumcision we're not allowed to take the other side of the argument? I'm truely confused.
How the hell are we supposed to even have an argument? You've already reduced my viewpoint is baby mutilation. This isn't a discussion. This is one side being ridiculous and sensationalist and the other side being like "wtf are you talking about it's just circumcision jesus."
Numerous people have said in the thread that they've been circumcised and they like it, or they don't care, or whatever. It's clearly not as "OMG HE"S BEEN PERMANENTLY DISFIGURED FOR LIIIFE" as some people are claiming.
|
On September 09 2011 13:00 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
I've so far sent 3 pms to mods requesting to close this.
Wtf?
You try reporting it?
Did you show them the OP wanting to close it?
|
On September 09 2011 07:50 SpearWrit wrote:You fail to mention that uncircumcised babies also run the risk of Phimosis, where the foreskin cannot be retracted, blocking the urethra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhimosisYou also fail to mention that Smegma also grows under foreskins over time, even for uncircumcised men who regularly wash under the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmegmaHaving a foreskin doesn't stop a man from having a "dick that isn't calloused and scarred." Circumcised penises grow used to contact with the outside and clothes that allow the skin to toughen and adapt and desensitize in a way that uncircumcised males cannot because they have a layer of skin over the sensitive area. As such, circumcised men have longer stamina during sex BECAUSE their sex organ is less sensitive.
Smegma is supposed to lubricate the glans; the wikipedia page did not say anything about negative side effects.
Also, being desensitized to stimulation means that you feel less....so I don't think it's worth it.
|
On September 09 2011 13:00 Torte de Lini wrote:
Not sure how Jewish tradition and religious significance should be considered an ignorant reasoning.
Because according to the Torah we only need to perform bloodletting. We don't need to amputate anything..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
