On June 28 2012 04:07 DeathAngel[ro] wrote: My dick is NOT circumcised.. and it feels good to have a ,,coverer'' for the cold and rainy days
But I always wondered how does if feel to be circumcised , always with your ,,head'' exposed .. doesn't that disturb you sometimes .. I'm just wondering since the only way I can imagine how would I feel circumcised is un-covering my dick from the skin .. and I must say that it bothers me sometimes
Plz only serious answers .
As with most things, you get used to it.
Especially since most circumcisions are done as a child, you'd quickly forget what uncircumcised feels like.
And if they cut off your hands, you get used to it.
Culture is a powerful thing. There's not a single sane child in Sweden who wants to get a circumcision, and you americans thinks you're being rational. This is not meant as a insult to americans, I'm just pointing out that the only reason why you don't shun the procedure is because it's so common in your country. If you think it's for cosmetical reasons, then why don't you also do it on girls?
On June 28 2012 06:43 Pholon wrote: Even if there are medical benefits, would you wish this on your child? (try watching 20 seconds without cringing - if the baby's cries don't do it, the straightjacket should). And seriously, how much do infants need a reduction of sexually transmitted diseases?! (unless of course, you get herpes and die from the person performing the circumcision with his mouth). Maybe give them the option later on, you know, when they actually start having sex, whether they'd like a circumcision or, oh I don't know, use a condom.
I still cringe every single time I see that video. Holy fucking shit.
I hope you are aware that the video is biased and does not reflect a correct image of how the procedure is widely being carried out - which is with a dorsal penile block.
I'll admit it's biased but I'd challenge you on the second part of your sentence. Those tools and strap-the-baby-down-thing don't look like they were produced to be used once a month. These are widely used. Even if there's only a small percentage of circumcisions carried out in the way showed in the video (that is, with a sterile scalpel in a hospital environment) let's consider what percentage of circumcisions are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar
The tools are being used as showcased, once again I would like to challenge you to do any procedure on an infant without the straps or using aneastethics to put him to sleep - I'm pretty sure you could publish it in NEJM if you succeeded, so please, go ahead!
Maybe this is an indication babies don't enjoy the procedure and we therefore shouldn't do it?
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: As stated, the dorsal penile block is standard procedure today and if you've ever broken a finger and gotten a block in your hand you would know that you could bloody well hammer your fist full force into a brick wall without feeling more than a slight tab. Provided the block works, the infant will at worst feel a bit of discomfort.
If you introduce full narcose to the procedure you not only increase the risk, but even introduce the risk of death to an otherwise rather harmless operation - which I hope we can agree is a pretty damn stupid thing to do considering we have a great alternative in the block.
We also have a great alternative in not performing the procedure at all.
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: Lastly, let us consider what percentage of circumcisions in GERMANY are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar (I'm guessing zero, zilch, nada, niet, ingen, keine).
Sure, if you're gonna circumcise an infant please do it in Germany. But even if you minimizing risk it isn't better than avoiding the whole thing altogether.
Have you ever had a baby? Babies don't like anything - litterally anything. On any given day they will cry for any given reason.
I would furthermore really urge you to read the OP of this thread, or even just the title. The topic is obviously with regards to circumcisions performed in Germany and not in a "dingy desert hut". When the procedure is done correctly it isn't any worse having the procedure than avoiding the whole thing altogether, making your argument and repeated appeal to emotion void.
You have yet to come up with a (medically) sound argument as to why this procedure shouldn't be done and more importantly why exactly this procedure is hazardous and incures enough duress for it to be considered assault compared to all the other things parents put their kids through. I won't be responding again until you are willing to do so.
Good day and best regards
Why cut something off just for the sake of it? There is no medical benefit to cutting it off, so how about just leave the damn thing alone? It seems like the equivalent of giving the baby a tattoo at birth just because you like the idea. You don't need a medial reason NOT to do something. How about if I cut off your earlobes? You can't show me a medical reason not to do that, can you? You don't need them to live so just let me cut them off.
There IS a medical benefit - I thought reading on wikipedia would've told you so, or just through this thread (several articles have already been linked). Personally I think it should be up to the parents to decide if the pro outweigh the cons, just like we do with every single other elective procedure on minors.
Are you sure about that? This is what I read...
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said:
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." [16]
Clarifying their statement in 2000 in response to criticism by Schoen et al.,[17] the authors explained:
The Task Force found the evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child.…Circumcision falls into that group of procedures that have potential medical benefits and some risks and should be evaluated by each family in the context of their personal beliefs and values as well as their ethnic, cultural, and religious practices. The Task Force respects the role of parents as decision-makers for their newborns and recommends that physicians discuss with parents the potential benefits as well as risks of circumcision so that parents can decide whether circumcision is in the child's best interests.[18]
Schoen et al. further replied in a letter to the editor, still disagreeing, and arguing that the task force had not given enough consideration to benefits of circumcision.[19]
In June 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia said:
"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."[20]
1) "Routine" means "to be performed on everyone in this situation" when it comes to medical journals. 2) You got your answer in your own quote, I've bolded it for you. There ARE benefits. The CDC and WHO recognises this, which honestly should be more than enough for the TL board to do it as well.
Except you weigh the benefits randomly against the potential harm and the matter of religion vs choice. It's not a medical intervention to be performed without second thought as most of the benefits can be reached with different methods or delayed circumcision.
On June 28 2012 06:43 Pholon wrote: Even if there are medical benefits, would you wish this on your child? (try watching 20 seconds without cringing - if the baby's cries don't do it, the straightjacket should). And seriously, how much do infants need a reduction of sexually transmitted diseases?! (unless of course, you get herpes and die from the person performing the circumcision with his mouth). Maybe give them the option later on, you know, when they actually start having sex, whether they'd like a circumcision or, oh I don't know, use a condom.
I still cringe every single time I see that video. Holy fucking shit.
I hope you are aware that the video is biased and does not reflect a correct image of how the procedure is widely being carried out - which is with a dorsal penile block.
I'll admit it's biased but I'd challenge you on the second part of your sentence. Those tools and strap-the-baby-down-thing don't look like they were produced to be used once a month. These are widely used. Even if there's only a small percentage of circumcisions carried out in the way showed in the video (that is, with a sterile scalpel in a hospital environment) let's consider what percentage of circumcisions are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar
The tools are being used as showcased, once again I would like to challenge you to do any procedure on an infant without the straps or using aneastethics to put him to sleep - I'm pretty sure you could publish it in NEJM if you succeeded, so please, go ahead!
Maybe this is an indication babies don't enjoy the procedure and we therefore shouldn't do it?
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: As stated, the dorsal penile block is standard procedure today and if you've ever broken a finger and gotten a block in your hand you would know that you could bloody well hammer your fist full force into a brick wall without feeling more than a slight tab. Provided the block works, the infant will at worst feel a bit of discomfort.
If you introduce full narcose to the procedure you not only increase the risk, but even introduce the risk of death to an otherwise rather harmless operation - which I hope we can agree is a pretty damn stupid thing to do considering we have a great alternative in the block.
We also have a great alternative in not performing the procedure at all.
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: Lastly, let us consider what percentage of circumcisions in GERMANY are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar (I'm guessing zero, zilch, nada, niet, ingen, keine).
Sure, if you're gonna circumcise an infant please do it in Germany. But even if you minimizing risk it isn't better than avoiding the whole thing altogether.
Have you ever had a baby? Babies don't like anything - litterally anything. On any given day they will cry for any given reason.
I would furthermore really urge you to read the OP of this thread, or even just the title. The topic is obviously with regards to circumcisions performed in Germany and not in a "dingy desert hut". When the procedure is done correctly it isn't any worse having the procedure than avoiding the whole thing altogether, making your argument and repeated appeal to emotion void.
You have yet to come up with a (medically) sound argument as to why this procedure shouldn't be done and more importantly why exactly this procedure is hazardous and incures enough duress for it to be considered assault compared to all the other things parents put their kids through. I won't be responding again until you are willing to do so.
Good day and best regards
Why cut something off just for the sake of it? There is no medical benefit to cutting it off, so how about just leave the damn thing alone? It seems like the equivalent of giving the baby a tattoo at birth just because you like the idea. You don't need a medial reason NOT to do something. How about if I cut off your earlobes? You can't show me a medical reason not to do that, can you? You don't need them to live so just let me cut them off.
There IS a medical benefit - I thought reading on wikipedia would've told you so, or just through this thread (several articles have already been linked). Personally I think it should be up to the parents to decide if the pro outweigh the cons, just like we do with every single other elective procedure on minors.
EDIT: I feel like it is time someone mentions this: Just because the medical associations doesn't recommend a procedure it doesn't mean the procedure doesn't have its benefits. It simply states that there is no reason for everyone to get it done, but if a person feels like it for whatever reasons there aren't any reasons not to.
Most of the real benefits are only applicable in a highly contagious environment though. If you got a 50% shot at AIDS and this reduces it by a certain margin, ok. But in Germany you have like 3000 infections a year. Among 80mio people. Benefits are really not that big in a country with really good health care like Germany, even less in an environment which educates boys about their exclusive toy and its uses and maintenance. Just because it has some kind of benefit you can't simply say it's generally positive.
I'm not saying it is generally positive, please don't try and put words in my mouth, it is a horrible argumentation technique and I would prefer if we could refrain from resorting to that. I'm saying it should be up to the parents to decide for their kids if the pros outweighs the cons as they are the legal guardians. The procedure is essentially riskfree and if it is the wish of the parents there is zero medical reason to oppose it.
Your argumentation technique is horrible: Don't quote out of context - it was a general statement about what it meant when medical associations write in a specific way which seems to have been missed by a lot of people in this thread.
EDIT:
On June 28 2012 07:51 Timerly wrote: Except you weigh the benefits randomly against the potential harm and the matter of religion vs choice. It's not a medical intervention to be performed without second thought as most of the benefits can be reached with different methods or delayed circumcision.
See, now we are getting somewhere - we've scrapped the bullshit appeal to emotion and are now down to the factual argumentation. Thank you!
You are 100% correct and as you might have noted, I'm not particularly pro circumcision, I'm pro consistency in the law though, and this law is inconsistent with the other laws regarding minors, parents, informed consent, elective medical procedures, heck even with the laws surrounding the role of the parent as a legal guardian.
On June 28 2012 03:54 sekritzzz wrote: Maybe they should ask the kids of Jews or Muslims if they want to be circumsized? So much for freedom of rights..........
On June 28 2012 03:53 HellRoxYa wrote: "Trashing on religion"? I'm going to take on Dawkin's stance here and say that there are no muslim, christian, buddhist or any other kind of religious children. They're just children. So I don't think a religious reason stands up against genital mutilation either. I'm fine with people who make this decision themselves after they've turned either 16 or 18, just like I'm fine with other body modifications and things like tattoos and piercings. Doing it to children however? Yeah, good work Germany.
Yea what horror. Kids shouldn't go to school or girls getting their ears pierced. They should decide when they are 16 or 18 if they want to go to school or have their ears peirced. it does irreplaceable damage to have them having to go through that torment!
The school argument is fucking retarded and you should be embaressed if was circumcised or had my ears pierced in no way does that help me in later life. Education fucking does next time you go for a job interview and the interviewer asks you what skills you think are relevant to the job tell him your circumcised and see where that gets you.
dozy bugger
User was warned for this post
Bill Hicks <3 stream: www.twitch.tv/hustler91
RoosterSamurai United States. June 28 2012 07:56. Posts 2101
I still cringe every single time I see that video. Holy fucking shit.
I hope you are aware that the video is biased and does not reflect a correct image of how the procedure is widely being carried out - which is with a dorsal penile block.
I'll admit it's biased but I'd challenge you on the second part of your sentence. Those tools and strap-the-baby-down-thing don't look like they were produced to be used once a month. These are widely used. Even if there's only a small percentage of circumcisions carried out in the way showed in the video (that is, with a sterile scalpel in a hospital environment) let's consider what percentage of circumcisions are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar
The tools are being used as showcased, once again I would like to challenge you to do any procedure on an infant without the straps or using aneastethics to put him to sleep - I'm pretty sure you could publish it in NEJM if you succeeded, so please, go ahead!
Maybe this is an indication babies don't enjoy the procedure and we therefore shouldn't do it?
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: As stated, the dorsal penile block is standard procedure today and if you've ever broken a finger and gotten a block in your hand you would know that you could bloody well hammer your fist full force into a brick wall without feeling more than a slight tab. Provided the block works, the infant will at worst feel a bit of discomfort.
If you introduce full narcose to the procedure you not only increase the risk, but even introduce the risk of death to an otherwise rather harmless operation - which I hope we can agree is a pretty damn stupid thing to do considering we have a great alternative in the block.
We also have a great alternative in not performing the procedure at all.
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote: Lastly, let us consider what percentage of circumcisions in GERMANY are performed in some dingy desert hut or similar (I'm guessing zero, zilch, nada, niet, ingen, keine).
Sure, if you're gonna circumcise an infant please do it in Germany. But even if you minimizing risk it isn't better than avoiding the whole thing altogether.
Have you ever had a baby? Babies don't like anything - litterally anything. On any given day they will cry for any given reason.
I would furthermore really urge you to read the OP of this thread, or even just the title. The topic is obviously with regards to circumcisions performed in Germany and not in a "dingy desert hut". When the procedure is done correctly it isn't any worse having the procedure than avoiding the whole thing altogether, making your argument and repeated appeal to emotion void.
You have yet to come up with a (medically) sound argument as to why this procedure shouldn't be done and more importantly why exactly this procedure is hazardous and incures enough duress for it to be considered assault compared to all the other things parents put their kids through. I won't be responding again until you are willing to do so.
Good day and best regards
Why cut something off just for the sake of it? There is no medical benefit to cutting it off, so how about just leave the damn thing alone? It seems like the equivalent of giving the baby a tattoo at birth just because you like the idea. You don't need a medial reason NOT to do something. How about if I cut off your earlobes? You can't show me a medical reason not to do that, can you? You don't need them to live so just let me cut them off.
There IS a medical benefit - I thought reading on wikipedia would've told you so, or just through this thread (several articles have already been linked). Personally I think it should be up to the parents to decide if the pro outweigh the cons, just like we do with every single other elective procedure on minors.
Are you sure about that? This is what I read...
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said:
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." [16]
Clarifying their statement in 2000 in response to criticism by Schoen et al.,[17] the authors explained:
The Task Force found the evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child.…Circumcision falls into that group of procedures that have potential medical benefits and some risks and should be evaluated by each family in the context of their personal beliefs and values as well as their ethnic, cultural, and religious practices. The Task Force respects the role of parents as decision-makers for their newborns and recommends that physicians discuss with parents the potential benefits as well as risks of circumcision so that parents can decide whether circumcision is in the child's best interests.[18]
Schoen et al. further replied in a letter to the editor, still disagreeing, and arguing that the task force had not given enough consideration to benefits of circumcision.[19]
In June 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia said:
"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."[20]
1) "Routine" means "to be performed on everyone in this situation" when it comes to medical journals. 2) You got your answer in your own quote, I've bolded it for you. There ARE benefits. The CDC and WHO recognises this, which honestly should be more than enough for the TL board to do it as well.
Learn to speak English before posting again. It is medically unnecessary. "Potential benefits" does not mean "LODFODSKOGFDSJODGJNIODGNODFLOOOOLLL GOTS LOTS BENEFITS BRO"
On June 28 2012 04:32 farvacola wrote: This is worth posting.
There is discrimination here in the US against uncircumcised penises, only it is difficult to pin down how pervasive it is.
Wahoo, this is crazy. I didn't know it was like this in US. Personnaly, expect a korean friend, I do not know anybody circumcised...
For whatever reason I didn't notice this video post before. Notwithstanding the surprising stupidity of the girl on the right, again, a guy can choose to be circumcised later in life if this becomes an issue. So, I don't see this as being very relevant. On a more personal note, I've been with lots of girls, and this has never happened, and I'd conjecture it's because I don't find the most ridiculous idiotic chick to take home.
Last edit: 2012-06-28 07:57:06
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
Body_Shield Canada. June 28 2012 07:59. Posts 2649
Progress, what is it? Out here, progress is numbers. Millimeters, kilometers, head counts, death tolls, this is progress. Colonies burned, ships destroyed, money earned. It all comes at a price, and if the price is right, I'll set the universe on fire
On June 28 2012 04:07 DeathAngel[ro] wrote: My dick is NOT circumcised.. and it feels good to have a ,,coverer'' for the cold and rainy days
But I always wondered how does if feel to be circumcised , always with your ,,head'' exposed .. doesn't that disturb you sometimes .. I'm just wondering since the only way I can imagine how would I feel circumcised is un-covering my dick from the skin .. and I must say that it bothers me sometimes
Plz only serious answers .
As with most things, you get used to it.
Especially since most circumcisions are done as a child, you'd quickly forget what uncircumcised feels like.
And if they cut off your hands, you get used to it.
Culture is a powerful thing. There's not a single sane child in Sweden who wants to get a circumcision, and you americans thinks you're being rational. This is not meant as a insult to americans, I'm just pointing out that the only reason why you don't shun the procedure is because it's so common in your country. If you think it's for cosmetical reasons, then why don't you also do it on girls?
I think you read a little too much into my comment.
It was just supposed to be an answer to the poster's question (since I have personal experience) and nothing more. I don't feel too strongly about the issue either way and I'm probably not going to circumcise my child.
There are jealous and butt-hurt people (sorry, had to say it) that are not circumcised campaigning against it claiming it puts a baby through harm.. When they have absolutely NO way to actually know that due to the fact that they weren't circumcised themselves. That is completely ridiculous/outrageous.
I was circumcised for non-religious reasons, and I have absolutely ZERO recollection of anything relating to it. You don't even know whats going on at that age ffs.
People who are not circumcised: Please stop these ridiculous anti-circumcision claims that you know nothing about.
Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:03:58
"Who hired this awful fountain gunner? He can't hit shit." - Yiss
On June 28 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] i find their decision to be reasonable and supported by logic. however, his post implied that it was illogical to go the other way (uphold the tradition), and i firmly disagree with that and so do all countries that allow circumcision by the way. reasonable minds may differ on this issue.
i thought we were talking about circumcision, not parents deciding to remove body parts willy-nilly? the red herring is cute though.
edit: jdseemoreglass said it better than me above.
"Should parents have the ability to decide that a part of a childs body can be removed if they want it to be that way?"
Thats exactly what he said.
well done sir, but he said:
Would you find a law that says "Parents can decide to remove a part of the body of their child if they want to" to be more logically sound?
I said both. -_-
It's the same thing. In the end this is about removing a part of a childs body. Do you disagree? Yes, it's a not that important part and it's likely that the procedure won't cause any physical trouble. However, parents aren't running around asking doctors to remove their childrens cecums either.
i have a problem with parents randomly deciding to remove body parts from their children, yes.
i do not have a problem with circumcision being done on babies before they consent to it, and i would have a problem if the U.S. government decided to tell me (as a parent) that i could not make that choice for my child.
i do not think it is unreasonable for the government to balance the interests of the child over the parent's interest in this case though. personally, the balance would tip towards allowing the parent to make that decision after consulting with medical professionals. but, reasonable minds can differ on this apparently touchy issue.
So you would be alright mutilating your child's penis to satisfy your own personal agenda?
read my first few posts in the thread. my "mutilated" penis is beautiful and i support circumcision for, inter alia, cosmetic reasons. i find uncircumcised penises to be less than attractive and would want my child to not have to go through ridicule, etc. that i believe is commonplace in the U.S. (obviously this is a personal preference and my mutilated penis may be unattractive to other people.) ;-)
i dont have a personal agenda. other parents can do whatever they want with their children's penises. i believe firmly in a parent's rights to make informed decisions for their children without government involvement.
I'm sorry man but that is the most shallow argument I've ever heard. In your uninformed opinion of the matter you have decided you are ok with subjecting your baby child to a painful cosmetic surgery that will reduce his sexual pleasure for the rest of his life.
I really feel truly sorry for you when you are willing to impose your own shallow ideas of beauty on a toddler. There is no excuse for being so unbelievably self centered as you are. Won't be coming back into this thread full of circular logic (the "I dont feel bad so it can't be bad" argument) and shallow minded people so don't bother replying.
lol, okay. yes, i would subject my child to the same procedure that i was subjected to and am glad that my parents decided for me. oh, and i would totally remove birth marks and other deformities from my child as well--all without his or her consent. all for selfish purposes because i want to make sure my child isn't bullied and ridiculed at school. im a fucking sociopath.
You know I normally agree with pretty much everything you post, but this is a bit crazy. I've been in locker rooms with other guys on sports teams etc. and noone has ever made fun of me for the fact that I am uncircumcised. Nor have I ever seen it done. Sure, guys will talk about how you're wearing a helmet or a tuque, and guys will rip on each other for differing penis size, but I've never heard of this being done. Let me put it this way. If you have an 8 inch dick, the other guys might call you mule, but they won't make fun of you for being uncircumcised. But more to the point, why are you so prepared to let these fears decide what your child's penis should look like? People might make fun of him if he goes bald later in life too, they might make fun of him for his skin color or race. You can't stop this so why make the appearance of his penis such a huge issue, when hardly anyone will even see it?
i only know about my experiences with females talking about it.
to the person who asked "who ridicules a child's penis:" i was referring to when he grows up, not when he is a child.
On June 28 2012 05:41 Keylime wrote: I find it odd that the majority against circumcision are the ones who aren't circumcised. I was myself, and honestly, I couldn't care less. It was done at an age where I have absolutely no recollection of what happened, and I really don't care that it was "forced upon me". Most of my friends were also circumcised, and they feel the exact same, they really don't care. it was not done on me for religious reasons, but for medical, so don't attack me on the points of "tradition and culture". It is proven that it reduces the risk of infection and STDs. But really, not a large population of circumcised males seem to care, moreover, it seems that the majority of us are completely OK with it, which I find funny.
This summed up exactly how I feel.
To take it in a step further, my Jewish faith dictates that I be circumcised. After being raised by my parents, turns out I too chose Judaism as my preferred faith. As such, when I'm looking for a Jewish partner, I'm sure she's also looking for a male that is circumcised. I'm also grateful my parents had it done at a time in my life that I can't remember, and don't deal with lingering pain from it.
So many people in this thread that aren't circumcised are in this thread guns blazing about mutilation, and so many people who have been circumcised really don't seem to mind it at all.
This thread is starting to remind me of watching men get uppity talking about being kicked in the nuts with women.
edit;
On June 28 2012 08:03 Starshaped wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you? The ONLY reason you defend it is because you yourself were mutilated, and so was your father, and his father etc. etc.
I actually find it much more aesthetically pleasing. Literally every sexual partner I've had has felt the same way. I'm glad mine was done to me. Please don't generalize.
It boggles my mind that anyone would defend genital mutilation of babies.
What the fuck is wrong with you? The ONLY reason you defend it is because you yourself were mutilated, and so was your father, and his father etc. etc.
The fact that something is a tradition does not instantly make it alright or acceptable. I mean just take a second and think about what is being done. YOU'RE MUTILATING GENITALS FOR NO REASON.
If it's so damn important to you, you can of your own free will elect to have it done when you are old enough, and I could care less. Of course, nobody sane would have it done as an adult, so that's why you have to get 'em when they're young and unable to dissent, right?
Disgusting.
My Starcraft 2, gaming and e-sports-related blog: http://starshapedthoughts.blogspot.com/
Body_Shield Canada. June 28 2012 08:04. Posts 2649
On June 28 2012 08:03 Durp wrote: This thread is starting to remind me of watching men get uppity about being kicked in the nuts.
Dude, don't joke about that, people have died from it.
Also there's a bunch of Jewish sects that don't require you to be circumcised, sorry.
Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:06:54
Progress, what is it? Out here, progress is numbers. Millimeters, kilometers, head counts, death tolls, this is progress. Colonies burned, ships destroyed, money earned. It all comes at a price, and if the price is right, I'll set the universe on fire
Un-Circumcised people in this thread will be against it because they think you actually remember getting it done (along with thinking its actually pain you feel).
Circumcised people in this thread (like me) will be for it (or indifferent at the minimum) because they know that you never felt or recollect anything at all, and have a good looking dick that you don't have to feel un-easy about taking your pants off for a chick for the first time. <--- Saying that part about feeling un-easy totally from a PERSONAL standpoint, meaning I'm not speaking for anyone who isn't circumcised. I'm just saying that if I wasn't, that I would feel un-easy.
Nobody who is uncircumcised should be against it as result of claiming it does pain/harm/distress to a baby, as you haven't gone through it yourself.
And I'm not even saying I'm "pro-circumcision".. I'm just saying it should be left up to the parents.
Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:18:13
"Who hired this awful fountain gunner? He can't hit shit." - Yiss
Body_Shield Canada. June 28 2012 08:08. Posts 2649
On June 28 2012 08:07 Enzymatic wrote: General Thread tldr:
Un-Circumcised people in this thread will be against it because they think you actually remember getting it done.
Circumcised people in this thread (like me) will be for it because they know that you never felt or recollect anything at all, and have a good looking dick that you don't have to feel un-easy about taking your pants off for a chick for the first time.
Wrong, and wrong. I'd like to argue with you on your points, but I feel it would be pretty useless.
On June 28 2012 08:07 Enzymatic wrote: Nobody who is uncircumcised should be against it, because you have never had it done yourself.
That is most fallacious argument ever and you know it
Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:10:47
Progress, what is it? Out here, progress is numbers. Millimeters, kilometers, head counts, death tolls, this is progress. Colonies burned, ships destroyed, money earned. It all comes at a price, and if the price is right, I'll set the universe on fire
On June 28 2012 08:07 Enzymatic wrote: General Thread tldr:
Un-Circumcised people in this thread will be against it because they think you actually remember getting it done.
Circumcised people in this thread (like me) will be for it because they know that you never felt or recollect anything at all, and have a good looking dick that you don't have to feel un-easy about taking your pants off for a chick for the first time.
Nobody who is uncircumcised should be against it, because you have never had it done yourself.
You're totally missing the point if you think "remembering it" is the only thing people object to.
My Starcraft 2, gaming and e-sports-related blog: http://starshapedthoughts.blogspot.com/
Harbinger631 United States. June 28 2012 08:10. Posts 375
On June 28 2012 08:07 Enzymatic wrote: General Thread tldr:
Un-Circumcised people in this thread will be against it because they think you actually remember getting it done.
Circumcised people in this thread (like me) will be for it because they know that you never felt or recollect anything at all, and have a good looking dick that you don't have to feel un-easy about taking your pants off for a chick for the first time.
Nobody who is uncircumcised should be against it, because you have never had it done yourself. The gesture of being against something you have no experience with is just ridiculous.
I'm (semi? half?)circumcised. I remember it.
HOLY shit what's that: Oh yeah, you're whole argument going down the drain.
Edit: Nobody who is circumcised should be for it - since they dont know how it's to live without it. Your argument is the most retarded I've seen in this thread.
Store
Starshaped Sweden. June 28 2012 08:03. Posts 575
