Realy? You are just looking for a fight with me, arent you? HEH? Want s piece of me, do you PUNK?
But realy. In the outside, the anti are "Its torture, its just mark them for life, they cant say no" etc etc. But deep deep inside, what they say is "Just be christian and stop being diffrunte". Its beggining with telling Muslims how to dress, continue to Kosher food banning amd go to this. What next? Banning the prayer for "next year in the builted Jerusalem" because its politicly problmeatic?
This mark, the circumcision, kept us united for more then 2000 years. No other religion survived that long without a patronized country for it. Sure, its a mark for life. I am a jew. Im also a full atheist. But yet as a nation i am a jew. Because judisem is more then just "I belive in god" or "not". Its the peoples, the traditions. And i dobt care if circumcision make your sex life better or worst as some research try to prove. Even if a new Nazi regiem will role the world, i prefer to own this mark with pride.
Anyone who dobt want to be a jew anymore - he dosent have too. This mark is not that odd or wierd. If anyone dont want to sleep with you just because of it - in my opinion its better this way.
And this is the crux of the matter. While you might find pride in it, the fact remains that millions of infant boys had their bodies permanently modified without the ability to give consent for no medical purpose.
It doesn't matter what the health benefits are. The fact is that circumcision is an incredible invasive procedure with risks and it's cruel and abhorrent to perform on an infant boy for no reason. You are making a decision to permanently change their body in ways that have not even been adequately researched.
(Is this topic suitable?) It's not a reversible procedure. Infants can't give consent, and may reject the faith that led them to have it later in life. That which is removed has a purpose. Mostly, it stops dust and clothing fibres getting to the bit beneath, and stops chafing. It's a sensitive part. The foreskin should only be removed if it is defective.
I was just listening to Skrillex, enjoying a nice Saturday evening, then I see this. pang I swear... one of these days... :|
All I can say is this. Your parents cut your penis as a child. You have no say. You are scarred for life (yes, my pun is intended). And the worst part is that most of the time women don't even care you get less infections in your long john silver.
Anyhow, I'd like to know the opinions of you all on male circumcision. Beneficial? Unnecessary?
My opinion would be that I don't see a point in generalizing or moralizing about other people's customs and habits, under the guise of "objective" concerns.
There are a lot worse things going on in the world, you'd think. Rather than these attempts to produce some global monoculture of perceived "normalcy."
I would post pictures of the possible disorders that men are more likely to acquire if they remain uncircumcised... but that wouldn't be age appropriate for the website lol.
It doesn't matter what the health benefits are. The fact is that circumcision is an incredible invasive procedure with risks and it's cruel and abhorrent to perform on an infant boy for no reason. You are making a decision to permanently change their body in ways that have not even been adequately researched.
This.
As for adult circumcision, go for it. Up to you, just make sure you're not pressured into it because of "health risks" or other arbitrary reasons.
one of the reasons people perform it on infants is so that they don't remember it
in what ways is it not adequately researched?
I don't believe that foreskin is meant to do anything in regards to clothing fibers... at least not specifically.
phimosis, paraphimosis, smegma build up, among other things (like penis cancer) are all dramatically decreased in circumcised males. Go buy a medical pathology text book and debate those citations.
I'm sure they can maybe remodel a new foreskin for you if you really want one.
While it may be true that many females don't care either way, from conversations I've had I have gleaned the following: those females that *do* care would much prefer circumcised dingles. I would imagine these sentiments are a prevailing result of the prominence of the practice of circumcision in those areas. In short, there's nothing innately unappealing either way. But my question is how much of an issue this topic really is. I realise the OP didn't want to delve into female circumcision (and neither do I), it seems the latter is far more problematic and heinous than the former. Suppose that male circumcision was no longer practised - at least at infancy. Would the world be an appreciably better place in terms of human suffering?
Would the world be an appreciably better place in terms of human suffering?
Not in my immediate surroundings, but not many people are circumcised here. Suffering may be greater or worse depending on location. This thread should be more to do with the issue of chopping bits off helpless infants, but isn't. Infants aren't capable of making such a decision, and one of such a personal nature should be taken by the person. If, later in life, they want their foreskin cut off, that's their decision.
Would the world be an appreciably better place in terms of human suffering?
Would the world be an appreciable better place if infants weren't tattooed at birth?
Even IF circumcision did not, in any way, affect anything other than appearance (which it doesn't) then it would still be a breach in personal rights. You are permanently altering another person without their permission or ability to consent.
If you've been circumcised and don't mind, good for you. However, that doesn't mean there are not people out there who have been and wish otherwise. A choice was taken from someone regarding what happens to their own body, which cannot be undone.
I'm fine with it for medical purposes or personal choice. My issue is with the circumcision of babies/children for no purpose other than cultural norms or religious practice.
