|
On September 09 2011 13:54 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 13:52 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:40 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:38 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:27 sureshot_ wrote:On September 09 2011 13:21 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 13:18 GypsyBeast wrote:
why are you on a personal crusade agenst circumcision? maybe just keep you're nose out of other peoples junk. seems like it would be better for everyone Tell that to the parents who do this to their kids. They had the kid, not you. There's no significant, NEGATIVE impact of being circumcised. NONE. If you're arguing that it's painful therefore the child shouldn't be subjected to it, well then he/she probably shouldn't have been subjected to birth either. Thank you! people in this post think circumcision should be banned just because it is painful to the infant, but what about the parents. the woman who had to give birth to the freaken child has the right to care for their child the she wants or needs to, not to mention the pain of childbirth. We do not need government or any other type of ruling body imposing themselves the second your child is born. Giving birth to a child gives you the right to inflict unnecessary physical pain on it? Where the fuck do you live where that is the case? If it is unnecessary, then don't give the child a circumcision. If it benefits the child in one way or another, go ahead. These statements are contradictory. Do you understand the meaning of the word "necessary"?
yes i do. it is something that is needed or absolutely essential. some men were born with genitalia problems like the the foreskin doesn't retract and can often be very painful later in life for the man. others foreskin gets in the way during urination getting urine in troublesome places. not to mention that the most common penile disorders involve the foreskin, which is a fact. therefore, i will keep the "necessary for some not all" as long as it has some long term benefit for that child getting the procedure, not for cosmetic reasons, nor because of some inferiority from the father or father-like figure like some of the posters are saying. if circumcision is necessary during the infant stage, which is rare enough as it is, then i have no problem with it.
|
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
|
On September 09 2011 13:33 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 13:29 resonant23 wrote:
Ive been circumcised my whole life, no problems here. sex, fap etc all great!! But have you ever been uncut and remembered what it was like? You don't have perspective...
He doesn't need perspective to simply state that he is content with being circumcised lol. All he said was that he hasn't had sexual issues with it.
|
Why would someone subject their child to such a surgery if it doesn't have significant health benefits? And it honestly better not be because "Well I have that right as the parent, because I went through pain to give birth to him." Well you took away his "right" of not being born to begin with.
I hear masturbation without lube is easier for uncircumcised men. Foreskin as the barrier between rough hands and the penis. If it is "supposedly" the same feeling, the penis would naturally need to develop less sensitive skin. It's clearly demonstrated when a boy grows up with an uncircumcised penis, and hasn't retracted their foreskin. The penis is extremely sensitive to touch and needs several weeks adjusting to the retraction.
|
On September 09 2011 14:04 Thrasymachus725 wrote:
8. So? Kid can't choose anything... That's why he has parents. If it has no ill effects then who cares?
There are no VALID arguments for or against it other than moral ones. Morals are individual. I believe there is NOTHING WRONG with circumcision (and nothing wrong with not circumcising), because there are no ill effects in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases. You believe circumcision must be illegal because... why? Some arbitrary moral opinion with no backing.
Most uncircumcised males will think it is a horrible abhorrent practice, while most circumcised people will not give a shit either way. What does that say?
It may have no ill effects, but it doesn't have any proven positive effects either, which means the only reason to possibly have it are for religious, cosmetic, or sexual reasons, which are all things that should be decided by the son when he's old enough, not by the parents. It's not like circumcision can be only performed when the baby is an infant.
|
On September 09 2011 14:09 Josealtron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:
@matjlav, Josealtron, Highlight, Mothra, BlueBird.
Rather than responding to each of you individually, take the relevant points in response to your own from below
The two issues (ears vs. penis) are far from being completely different:
1) It is modifying your child's body without their consent.
2) Circumcision is also not a permanent modification, there are links in OP which talk about ways to regrow the foreskin.
3) Piercing your ears can lead to horrible infections and the like. It is not risk-free.
My point was specifically that:
Stop arguing about circumcision specifically, it only leads to horrible flame-ridden threads like this one. Your arguments should be that a parent modifying their child's body without the child's consent is wrong regardless of what the modification is. If you hold the stance that circumcising a an infant is wrong but getting an infant's ears pierced isn't you're simply being hypocritical. I do think that getting an infant's ear pierced is wrong, but it also isn't as permanent(it grows back on its own relatively quickly and without any specific recovery procedure)and doesn't affect sex(opinions on this are mixed, but either way not for the parent to decide). This makes it a much less serious issue than circumcision and consent could/should be allowed at a much younger age than consent for circumcision. I don't support infant ear piercing, but it's much less serious than circumcision
And that is your personal opinion, which not everyone shares. Based on many of the responses to this thread it is quite arguable that it does not negatively effect sex (and based on some accounts, increases pleasure for the female involved). This being the case why should it matter how permanent the procedure is if there are no significant negative effects from having it done? (which is quite indeed plausible, but please do not take this as me trying to convey this as fact).
So it comes down to is, the OP feels very passionately about his opinion and hence starts screaming:
"HERE IS MY OPINION, IF IT IS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS HERE ARE SOME HORRIBLY BIASED SOURCES WHICH MEANS YOU SHOULD ADHERE TO MY OPINION AND DISREGARD YOUR OWN".
If he had have maintained relative neutrality (as much as possible, given his strong opinion on the subject) while quoting sources that were as unbiased as possible and left blatant lies out of it (the parts about inferiority complex - that was ridiculous garbage) it would have resulted in much better discussion about the subject.
Instead it has turned into a relative shitfest of -
(circumcised poster): "Hows your stinky dick and not being able to pleasure a woman properly? /trollface"
(uncircumcised poster): "Hows your lack of sexual pleasure, cut guys? /trollface"
|
On September 09 2011 14:14 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 13:33 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 13:29 resonant23 wrote:
Ive been circumcised my whole life, no problems here. sex, fap etc all great!! But have you ever been uncut and remembered what it was like? You don't have perspective... He doesn't need perspective to simply state that he is content with being circumcised lol. All he said was that he hasn't had sexual issues with it.
If you don't know what you are missing then you won't miss it at all.
|
On September 09 2011 14:10 Nevermove wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 13:54 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:52 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:40 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:38 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:27 sureshot_ wrote:On September 09 2011 13:21 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 13:18 GypsyBeast wrote:
why are you on a personal crusade agenst circumcision? maybe just keep you're nose out of other peoples junk. seems like it would be better for everyone Tell that to the parents who do this to their kids. They had the kid, not you. There's no significant, NEGATIVE impact of being circumcised. NONE. If you're arguing that it's painful therefore the child shouldn't be subjected to it, well then he/she probably shouldn't have been subjected to birth either. Thank you! people in this post think circumcision should be banned just because it is painful to the infant, but what about the parents. the woman who had to give birth to the freaken child has the right to care for their child the she wants or needs to, not to mention the pain of childbirth. We do not need government or any other type of ruling body imposing themselves the second your child is born. Giving birth to a child gives you the right to inflict unnecessary physical pain on it? Where the fuck do you live where that is the case? If it is unnecessary, then don't give the child a circumcision. If it benefits the child in one way or another, go ahead. These statements are contradictory. Do you understand the meaning of the word "necessary"? yes i do. it is something that is needed or absolutely essential. some men were born with genitalia problems like the the foreskin doesn't retract and can often be very painful later in life for the man. others foreskin gets in the way during urination getting urine in troublesome places. not to mention that the most common penile disorders involve the foreskin, which is a fact. therefore, i will keep the "necessary for some not all" as long as it has some long term benefit for that child getting the procedure, not for cosmetic reasons, nor because of some inferiority from the father or father-like figure like some of the posters are saying. if circumcision is necessary during the infant stage, which is rare enough as it is, then i have no problem with it.
I suffered from phimosis myself and can tell you something as drastic as circumcision is almost never required to treat it. In almost all cases simple stretching exercises and creams are enough, in more extreme cases some minor surgery (not circumcision) will be resorted to. In only a tiny, tiny minority of cases, if ever, is circumcision a necessity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
And it's not something you can be born with. The foreskin can't retract at all at that point. There is absolutely no way of knowing at worth whether the condition will or will not develop until later.
|
On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse.
I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it.
The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context.
|
On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context.
Because there is no other way to rationalize the action.
For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child?
|
On September 09 2011 14:27 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context. Because there is no other way to rationalize the action. For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child?
No other way than what?
Why does reason matter? If you are making the argument that it's no big deal because it won't be remembered, then why do I need a reason in the first place? There should be no objection or cause for me to explain myself.
|
On September 09 2011 14:20 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:10 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:54 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:52 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:40 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:38 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:27 sureshot_ wrote:On September 09 2011 13:21 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 13:18 GypsyBeast wrote:
why are you on a personal crusade agenst circumcision? maybe just keep you're nose out of other peoples junk. seems like it would be better for everyone Tell that to the parents who do this to their kids. They had the kid, not you. There's no significant, NEGATIVE impact of being circumcised. NONE. If you're arguing that it's painful therefore the child shouldn't be subjected to it, well then he/she probably shouldn't have been subjected to birth either. Thank you! people in this post think circumcision should be banned just because it is painful to the infant, but what about the parents. the woman who had to give birth to the freaken child has the right to care for their child the she wants or needs to, not to mention the pain of childbirth. We do not need government or any other type of ruling body imposing themselves the second your child is born. Giving birth to a child gives you the right to inflict unnecessary physical pain on it? Where the fuck do you live where that is the case? If it is unnecessary, then don't give the child a circumcision. If it benefits the child in one way or another, go ahead. These statements are contradictory. Do you understand the meaning of the word "necessary"? yes i do. it is something that is needed or absolutely essential. some men were born with genitalia problems like the the foreskin doesn't retract and can often be very painful later in life for the man. others foreskin gets in the way during urination getting urine in troublesome places. not to mention that the most common penile disorders involve the foreskin, which is a fact. therefore, i will keep the "necessary for some not all" as long as it has some long term benefit for that child getting the procedure, not for cosmetic reasons, nor because of some inferiority from the father or father-like figure like some of the posters are saying. if circumcision is necessary during the infant stage, which is rare enough as it is, then i have no problem with it. I suffered from phimosis myself and can tell you something as drastic as circumcision is almost never required to treat it. In almost all cases simple stretching exercises and creams are enough, in more extreme cases some minor surgery ( not circumcision) will be resorted to. In only a tiny, tiny minority of cases, if ever, is circumcision a necessity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhimosisAnd it's not something you can be born with. The foreskin can't retract at all at that point. There is absolutely no way of knowing at worth whether the condition will or will not develop until later.
you have your opinions on this topic and i have mine. if you think it is that useless of a procedure then fine, but don't go and attack it like some of the other posters. it is nothing more than an option at birth and later at life. i am no medical expert, nor am i a doctor, but at least, thanks to my circumcision, i wont get phimosis.
|
On September 09 2011 14:27 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context. Because there is no other way to rationalize the action. For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child?
The reason that you would intentionally cause temporary physical pain to a child is if the benefits resulting from that outweigh the temporary pain.
Are there benefits though? That is what nobody can agree on.
|
There are people on this forum who are really trying hard to justify the mutilation of infants. I really don't understand.
|
On September 09 2011 14:32 Nevermove wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:20 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:10 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:54 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:52 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:40 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 13:38 Nevermove wrote:On September 09 2011 13:27 sureshot_ wrote:On September 09 2011 13:21 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On September 09 2011 13:18 GypsyBeast wrote:
why are you on a personal crusade agenst circumcision? maybe just keep you're nose out of other peoples junk. seems like it would be better for everyone Tell that to the parents who do this to their kids. They had the kid, not you. There's no significant, NEGATIVE impact of being circumcised. NONE. If you're arguing that it's painful therefore the child shouldn't be subjected to it, well then he/she probably shouldn't have been subjected to birth either. Thank you! people in this post think circumcision should be banned just because it is painful to the infant, but what about the parents. the woman who had to give birth to the freaken child has the right to care for their child the she wants or needs to, not to mention the pain of childbirth. We do not need government or any other type of ruling body imposing themselves the second your child is born. Giving birth to a child gives you the right to inflict unnecessary physical pain on it? Where the fuck do you live where that is the case? If it is unnecessary, then don't give the child a circumcision. If it benefits the child in one way or another, go ahead. These statements are contradictory. Do you understand the meaning of the word "necessary"? yes i do. it is something that is needed or absolutely essential. some men were born with genitalia problems like the the foreskin doesn't retract and can often be very painful later in life for the man. others foreskin gets in the way during urination getting urine in troublesome places. not to mention that the most common penile disorders involve the foreskin, which is a fact. therefore, i will keep the "necessary for some not all" as long as it has some long term benefit for that child getting the procedure, not for cosmetic reasons, nor because of some inferiority from the father or father-like figure like some of the posters are saying. if circumcision is necessary during the infant stage, which is rare enough as it is, then i have no problem with it. I suffered from phimosis myself and can tell you something as drastic as circumcision is almost never required to treat it. In almost all cases simple stretching exercises and creams are enough, in more extreme cases some minor surgery ( not circumcision) will be resorted to. In only a tiny, tiny minority of cases, if ever, is circumcision a necessity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhimosisAnd it's not something you can be born with. The foreskin can't retract at all at that point. There is absolutely no way of knowing at worth whether the condition will or will not develop until later. you have your opinions on this topic and i have mine. if you think it is that useless of a procedure then fine, but don't go and attack it like some of the other posters. it is nothing more than an option at birth and later at life. i am no medical expert, nor am i a doctor, but at least, thanks to my circumcision, i wont get phimosis.
You previously stated that unless it is necessary then it shouldn't be done. That happens to be my opinion on the subject.
Unless you have changed your mind? You have contradicted yourself many times already and I'm just attempting to straighten things out.
|
On September 09 2011 14:34 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:27 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context. Because there is no other way to rationalize the action. For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child? The reason that you would intentionally cause temporary physical pain to a child is if the benefits resulting from that outweigh the temporary pain. Are there benefits though? That is what nobody can agree on.
All the medical associations in the industrial world can agree on it, though -- they say that the benefits do not outweigh the risks, and that is why routine circumcision is not recommended by any medical body in the Western world.
|
On September 09 2011 14:36 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:34 Tektos wrote:On September 09 2011 14:27 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context. Because there is no other way to rationalize the action. For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child? The reason that you would intentionally cause temporary physical pain to a child is if the benefits resulting from that outweigh the temporary pain. Are there benefits though? That is what nobody can agree on. All the medical associations in the industrial world can agree on it, though -- they say that the benefits do not outweigh the risks, and that is why routine circumcision is not recommended by any medical body in the Western world.
They agree on the MEDICAL benefits. There are arguably other benefits though.
|
On September 09 2011 14:38 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 14:36 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 14:34 Tektos wrote:On September 09 2011 14:27 adrenaLinG wrote:On September 09 2011 14:22 Exarl25 wrote:On September 09 2011 14:12 v3chr0 wrote:
lol, so much emphasis on how much pain it causes. I can nearly guarantee the baby will not remember the pain, procedure or even the fkin month it happened in.
Is it ok for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain on a baby so long as it causes no long term damage? Of course not, that's child abuse. I don't understand why so many people are attempting to downplay the pain aspect of it. The "It's ok because he won't remember it" argument wouldn't hold up in any other context. Because there is no other way to rationalize the action. For what reason would you ever intentionally inflict physical harm on a child? The reason that you would intentionally cause temporary physical pain to a child is if the benefits resulting from that outweigh the temporary pain. Are there benefits though? That is what nobody can agree on. All the medical associations in the industrial world can agree on it, though -- they say that the benefits do not outweigh the risks, and that is why routine circumcision is not recommended by any medical body in the Western world. They agree on the MEDICAL benefits. There are arguably other benefits though.
And what are these non-medical benefits?
|
United States13896 Posts
Who would've thought guys were so passionate about their dicks!
This thread has run its course. To everyone in this thread: go jerk one out to get rid of your raging hardons please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
