Circumcision

[AllieBaba]

JB, you really ought to use your own material more often. Practice makes perfect.

 

[JBeukema]

JB, you really ought to use your own material more often.

Why? Your own words make my case

 

[AllieBaba]

Only if the case you're making is that I'm hilarious and you have way too much time on your hands.

 

[Hugh7]

I think keep doing it, for the health benefits and because of the look, straight up. I've been told by girls that it looks freaky to them when it's uncircumcized. I'm glad my mom had it done. It's considered more "normal" in the world of sex. That's a frivolous reason, but a reason that exists nonetheless.

Only in parts of the US, and with the rate now about 55%, less and less. Someone said a foreskin is a good airhead repellent.

**eta: plus, what's the harm? I have no memory of this, its pain, no sustained effects except that I'm actually GLAD it's been done.

And of course G.T. doesn't know what he's missing.

Zoom-bong, you may like this message: www . cafepress . com / intactivism / 5689452

 

[Cecilie1200]

This question should be asked right after questioning the child as to whether they want to be born into this world, at this particular time, to these particular parents, country, religion, and their social position. If the child answers affirmative to above, we can move to the next questions, sex, height, weight, intelligence etc.

PS does anyone know if they wear out? I don't have one. LOL

If what wears out? The foreskin, or the penis?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think using the term mutilation is silly. It's not to deform, it's for inherent health-benefits and Females from @ least my experience prefer it be done - so to NOT do it I'd also consider it a mutilation of sorts.

You'd be considered ab-normal in a realm of life where you'd LEAST want to be considered that, SEX. (hubba).

You're acting as if this is some form of torture or something. Ridiculous. The baby doesn't even realize this is happening or has happened, and it's done in an instant with no memory of it at all.

Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation". You weren't going to use it for anything anyway, and it's being done for medical and health reasons, not as a fashion statement.

I would like to add, though, that the medical establishment seems to think it is no longer strictly medically necessary, since many doctors will now recommend that it not be done unless the parents have strong opinions on the subject, and Medicaid and many health insurance companies no longer pay for it on the grounds that it's not medically indicated.

 

[DV8]

Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation". You weren't going to use it for anything anyway

What does a woman use her labia for?

and it's being done for medical and health reasons,

not as a fashion statement.

Actually, it's from the Jewish influence. It's a holdover from Jewish ritual mutilation of their sons' genitals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation". You weren't going to use it for anything anyway

What does a woman use her labia for?

and it's being done for medical and health reasons,

not as a fashion statement.

Actually, it's from the Jewish influence. It's a holdover from Jewish ritual mutilation of their sons' genitals.

I'm sorry, but the foreskin is not comparable to the labia, either outer or inner. You should work on your anatomical studies a bit more.

And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect". It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time. However, the medical establishment now believes that their science has now progressed to the point where the health concerns that circumcision mitigates can be dealt with in other ways.

 

[Schnizel]

Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation". You weren't going to use it for anything anyway

What does a woman use her labia for?

and it's being done for medical and health reasons,

not as a fashion statement.

Actually, it's from the Jewish influence. It's a holdover from Jewish ritual mutilation of their sons' genitals.

I'm sorry, but the foreskin is not comparable to the labia, either outer or inner. You should work on your anatomical studies a bit more.

Actually, it's homologous. Perhaps you should study more.

And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect"

.
Actually, it did, which is why it's primarily practices in nations with a strong Christian influence.

It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time.

it was never such a valid medical procedure as they'd have you believe. Much like Female Hysteria, it was merely a means of seeking to justify things.

 

[manu1959]

hey....if you want your kid to look like an anteater....fine with me.....

i prefer the german helmet look......

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does a woman use her labia for?

not as a fashion statement.

Actually, it's from the Jewish influence. It's a holdover from Jewish ritual mutilation of their sons' genitals.

I'm sorry, but the foreskin is not comparable to the labia, either outer or inner. You should work on your anatomical studies a bit more.

Actually, it's homologous. Perhaps you should study more.

No, they aren't, and if you were going for intimidation via big words, you have the wrong opponent. That whole "I'ma throw out something with lots of syllables, and then loftily suggest that you study, and that'll make it sound like I have a scary argument" thing just makes me laugh.

The foreskin is also known as the prepuce. In female anatomy, that term is used to denote the "hood" over the clitoris. It is THAT anatomical part to which the foreskin is "homologous", Mr. Webster. Perhaps YOU should do a little studying before you set out to impress me.

And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect"

.
Actually, it did, which is why it's primarily practices in nations with a strong Christian influence.

Really? Then how come it's only been really common in the US in the twentieth century, and has never been that common in Europe at all?

It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time.

it was never such a valid medical procedure as they'd have you believe. Much like Female Hysteria, it was merely a means of seeking to justify things.

If you're seriously trying to get me to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics, in the mid-twentieth century, was recommending a surgical procedure so widely that 90% of male children had it on the same basis that nineteenth century doctors talked about "the vapors", you're going to have to earn a lot more credibility first.

 

[Sinatra]

"What the hell - why these kids gotta start a thread about this? Musta been some momma boy liberal..."

 

[Schnizel]

So the people doing the female circumcisions are doing it wrong? Damned, I'll tell 'm to make sure they just take the hood.


Thanks for helpin' us fix that

 

[Schnizel]

Sorry, the medical dictionary I had was from the 50's

 

[brewerboy]

Most chics I've polled on this have said that they dont dig un circumsized pee-pees.

But I do wonder how much it hurts babies. My son was given a thing of baby tylenol and he slept forever, and then seemed extra cranky when he woke up.

And man, it takes forever for that little ring/cap thingy to fall off!

 

[BrianH]

Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?

The idea to ban circumcision is retarded. 1. Condom companies say they don't protect against STDs.
2. Having a circumcised penis is not having a "disfigurement."

I know someone who was not circumcised. As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected. He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone. The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor. It still embarasses him to this day.

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised. But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

 

[Father Time]

Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?

The idea to ban circumcision is retarded. 1. Condom companies say they don't protect against STDs.
2. Having a circumcised penis is not having a "disfigurement."

I know someone who was not circumcised. As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected. He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone. The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor. It still embarasses him to this day.

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised. But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

Name One condom company that says they don't protect against STDs, I've heard birth control pill sellers say it all the time but not condom companies.

You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard. From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.

Anyway I'd say it's a disfigurement because there's no way the penis is going to look like that naturally and the foreskin won't come back by itself.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. Sorry. It's no more painful than those awful heel pricks they do to get blood samples.

I've been there for 2 of them. Took about 2 seconds, babies quit crying within minutes and didn't cry again.

 

[brewerboy]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. Sorry. It's no more painful than those awful heel pricks they do to get blood samples.

I've been there for 2 of them. Took about 2 seconds, babies quit crying within minutes and didn't cry again.

Have you been there after the babies are delivered back to their parents or the hospital nursery?

Not trying to be a smartass, but seriously. Have you?

 

[Samyaza]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?