Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (67 users)
Active: 5701 users | |
|
| sevencck Canada. June 28 2012 08:21. Posts 632 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:14 1Eris1 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:07 Enzymatic wrote:
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.
Gotta call bullshit here. I am against rape, even though I have never been raped before. By your logic, I am ridiculous in this aspect.
100% agree.
On June 28 2012 08:19 Body_Shield wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:20 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
I love you
 Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:22:22 |
| | I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein |
|
|
| Poffel June 28 2012 08:22. Posts 365 | Profile # |
| To be honest, even though I certainly enjoy having a penis, I have a hard time understanding those who argue for or against the cosmetic effects of a circumcision on something that essentially looks like a radioactive vegetable from outer space. |
|
|
| Body_Shield Canada. June 28 2012 08:22. Posts 2669 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:19 Bobgrimly wrote:
The original reason for circumcision was to avoid infection. Back in the old days people weren't washing so well and didn't have soap and anti biotics so a small infection could be a big deal. Now days there is no reason for circumcision other than people clinging to old ways.
Personally glad I don't live in a culture where this is common and I have all of my penis. But I know people who have had it done.... they don't seem to mind. At the end of the day ideally everyone would be given a choice once they reach adult hood but then no one would be circumsized... find me a guy willing to cut his penis and you have a disturbed individual or extreme festishist.
But kids don't remember it so no harm done. They might feel slightly less but as people point out the brain makes up for a lot. Let people do as they wish. If you don't like it don't do it. If you do like it... ask yourself if you would have had it done at age 21? If so then good for you.
The "it's fine because they won't remember" argument doesn't work, see the fact that you could also remove parts of the ears, pinkey toes, a single kidney, several lobes of the liver, but that would be fine because a baby wouldn't remember it.
I'm not grouping foreskin in with internal organs in terms of importance, just the fact that you could do all these things and the child probably won't remember in 10 years. |
| | Now, we have a new horizon. A scary, awesome horizon effectively infinite in all directions. And it'd be a damn shame if we didn't see what was on the other side. |
|
|
| Ghostcom Denmark. June 28 2012 08:23. Posts 2593 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:13 Timerly wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 07:55 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:47 Timerly wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:39 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:35 RoosterSamurai wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:33 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:20 Pholon wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:04 Pholon wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:58 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
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.
if a person feels like it for whatever reasons
that being the important part though, eh?
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.
Wow, you can't even distinguish which part of a post is actual argumentation and which one is toying with the other one based off a random statement which doesn't actually contribute anything. You use funny ad hominem though, give you that, great argumentation technique to criticize argumentation technique on a forum. This is not a debate, it's a bunch of strangers shouting in a circle. Funny how I made the second post before even reading the one you wrote before that one. So now that has come around what goes around, let's get back to the discussion, right? And by the way, "you" could be replaced by "one". Not referring to you. Not putting anything in your mouth. Insert dick joke here. You argue benefits, I argue absolutely minimal benefits, especially considering the possible adverse outcomes. When a procedure does not achieve anything a less intrusive and less dangerous (in relative terms) method can as well then there's no reason to resort to it which is what medical associations usually argue. You tried to generalize it as a positive intervention with some risk involved which is far off. It's highly unnecessary but extremely intrusive and irreversible, that's not a decision for parents to make as the decision to do it is most likely adverse for the child (pain, removal of choice, irreversible stigma of a religion in the worst cases). It's not a matter of choice for parents, it's one of choice for the individual. Especially with the time frame eliminating most of the benefits cited (age 0 to 16/18 depending on law here, I'm not certain) during the period where choice of the individual would be overruled permanently.
I'm terribly sorry I can't read you mind over the internet, obviously my mistake and what part of your posts does what to the other. I'm very open to the option that I misunderstood you, but reading your previous post again I arrive at the same conclusion - I guess I don't understand German humor  And even if this is a circle of people yelling I see no reason why we shouldn't observe some of the general rules of arguing, but /shrug.
I think you have misunderstood me. I tried to pass it as an intervention which didn't matter either way really medically as the adverse outcome compared to the positive outcome was a matter of personal preference, hence should be decided by the parents, just like we let them do with any other likewise case in a childs upbringing. When you decided to jump in I was arguing against the notion that NO positive effects existed, which just isn't right - there are some. I never went into the the size of these, I merely stated they existed and defended their existence.
Once again, I'm not pro-circumcision, but I'm pro-consistency.
And with this I'm off to bed.Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:26:12 |
|
|
| GeedrAhsc United States. June 28 2012 08:24. Posts 93 | Profile # |
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one. |
|
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 28 2012 08:25. Posts 8767 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:20 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
well done sir, but he said:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
im male. i am not sure why you are referring to sex appeal. i am more concerned about my children's self-esteem than sex appeal. i see no problem with a parent deciding this issue for their child, and have yet to see anyone refute that fact other than to say generically that people shouldn't decide issues for others. parents make a lot of decisions for their children; this being one of the relatively unimportant ones. |
| |
|
| Enzymatic Canada. June 28 2012 08:26. Posts 853 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it and hate it when they've never even had it done on themselves). Who knows.
I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me  Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:27:33 |
| | "Who hired this awful fountain gunner? He can't hit shit." - Yiss |
|
|
| Khrey United States. June 28 2012 08:26. Posts 34 | Profile # |
| I don't know why people care about the circumcision topic so much, if you want it done, great, if not, that's fine to, religious or not. My parents had me circumcised as a baby cause they didn't want a nasty coat over my winky, and I'm glad they did. But hey, everyone's different. |
|
|
| SnipedSoul Canada. June 28 2012 08:28. Posts 1741 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:26 Enzymatic wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it). Who knows. I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me
What's so great about it? I am extremely jealous and simply must know what I am missing out on by having intact foreskin.Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:28:39 |
|
|
| Enzymatic Canada. June 28 2012 08:30. Posts 853 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:28 SnipedSoul wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:26 Enzymatic wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it). Who knows. I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me
What's so great about it? I am extremely jealous and simply must know what I am missing out on by having intact foreskin.
Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to seek justification for all of the anti-circumcision rants thus far in this thread claiming it puts you through "mutilating, writhing pain!"... From people that have never even had it done themselves, so obviously have no way to know that.
Maybe they are recalling their past life or something? Who knows.Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:31:34 |
| | "Who hired this awful fountain gunner? He can't hit shit." - Yiss |
|
|
| Body_Shield Canada. June 28 2012 08:31. Posts 2669 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:30 Enzymatic wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:28 SnipedSoul wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:26 Enzymatic wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it). Who knows. I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me
What's so great about it? I am extremely jealous and simply must know what I am missing out on by having intact foreskin.
Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to seek justification for all of the anti-circumcision rants thus far in this thread claiming it puts you through "mutilating, writhing pain!"... From people that have never even had it done themselves, so obviously have no way to know that.
Have you watched the Penn and Teller video I linked, those baby cries aren't normal baby cries. |
| | Now, we have a new horizon. A scary, awesome horizon effectively infinite in all directions. And it'd be a damn shame if we didn't see what was on the other side. |
|
|
| Enzymatic Canada. June 28 2012 08:31. Posts 853 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:31 Body_Shield wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:30 Enzymatic wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:28 SnipedSoul wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:26 Enzymatic wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it). Who knows. I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me
What's so great about it? I am extremely jealous and simply must know what I am missing out on by having intact foreskin.
Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to seek justification for all of the anti-circumcision rants thus far in this thread claiming it puts you through "mutilating, writhing pain!"... From people that have never even had it done themselves, so obviously have no way to know that.
Have you watched the Penn and Teller video I linked, those baby cries aren't normal baby cries.
I haven't watched it yet, I'll have a look. |
| | "Who hired this awful fountain gunner? He can't hit shit." - Yiss |
|
|
| Derez Netherlands. June 28 2012 08:32. Posts 4674 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:20 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
im male. i am not sure why you are referring to sex appeal. i am more concerned about my children's self-esteem than sex appeal. i see no problem with a parent deciding this issue for their child, and have yet to see anyone refute that fact other than to say generically that people shouldn't decide issues for others. parents make a lot of decisions for their children; this being one of the relatively unimportant ones.
There's nothing to be concerned about when it comes to your self-esteem due to circumcision when you live in Germany. The vast majority of people aren't circumcised, so you're not any different than anyone else. As a parent there is no need to even consider getting your kid circumcized if you're German.
The only possible argument against it is 'religious freedom', which in all honesty, with the likelyhood that a child born into a religious family will become an atheist/agnostic/change religions, isn't a good enough. The importance of circumcision varies by what society you live in, and as a cultural neighbor to Germany, I honestly don't think anyone reasonable in Europe gives a shit.
Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:34:42 |
|
|
| Crushinator Netherlands. June 28 2012 08:33. Posts 1254 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:20 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
im male. i am not sure why you are referring to sex appeal. i am more concerned about my children's self-esteem than sex appeal. i see no problem with a parent deciding this issue for their child, and have yet to see anyone refute that fact other than to say generically that people shouldn't decide issues for others. parents make a lot of decisions for their children; this being one of the relatively unimportant ones.
What other decisions do parents make that are irreversible in a similar way though? I honestly can't think of any myself.
If I make my kid eat some vegetable he doesn't like, he can always decide not to eat it as an adult. He can't decide or aspire to have a foreskin. |
|
|
| SnipedSoul Canada. June 28 2012 08:33. Posts 1741 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:30 Enzymatic wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:28 SnipedSoul wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:26 Enzymatic wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:24 GeedrAhsc wrote:
I had absolutely no idea that this was such a huge deal. I read the OP and was surprised, and surprised again that there are over 20 pages of argument.
Either way, I'm quite happy with having the procedure done to me, as are most of my friends, so I really don't understand why people have their jimmies rustled over it. I've never once considered my genitals "mutilated", and I'd have it done to my son were I to have one.
Its the non-circumcised conspiracy theorists raiding this thread and putting their own spin on it. (as result of jealousy, or for whatever reason they feel they need to get their feathers all ruffled over it). Who knows. I had it done, and I am completely happy with it. I could never imagine not getting it done. And if I have a son one day I will most certainly have the procedure done to him as well as I know that one day when hes starting to hit that age.. He will definitely thank me
What's so great about it? I am extremely jealous and simply must know what I am missing out on by having intact foreskin.
Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to seek justification for all of the anti-circumcision rants thus far in this thread claiming it puts you through "mutilating, writhing pain!"... From people that have never even had it done themselves, so obviously have no way to know that.
I'm not offended.
We need to find guys who were circumcised later in life. Ideally men who were circumcised in their mid 20s who were sexually active before and after the procedure. Only they can compare cut vs uncut dongs. |
|
|
| Timerly Germany. June 28 2012 08:33. Posts 462 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:13 Timerly wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:55 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:47 Timerly wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:39 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:35 RoosterSamurai wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:33 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:20 Pholon wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:11 Ghostcom wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:04 Pholon wrote:
[quote]
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.
if a person feels like it for whatever reasons
that being the important part though, eh?
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.
Wow, you can't even distinguish which part of a post is actual argumentation and which one is toying with the other one based off a random statement which doesn't actually contribute anything. You use funny ad hominem though, give you that, great argumentation technique to criticize argumentation technique on a forum. This is not a debate, it's a bunch of strangers shouting in a circle. Funny how I made the second post before even reading the one you wrote before that one. So now that has come around what goes around, let's get back to the discussion, right? And by the way, "you" could be replaced by "one". Not referring to you. Not putting anything in your mouth. Insert dick joke here. You argue benefits, I argue absolutely minimal benefits, especially considering the possible adverse outcomes. When a procedure does not achieve anything a less intrusive and less dangerous (in relative terms) method can as well then there's no reason to resort to it which is what medical associations usually argue. You tried to generalize it as a positive intervention with some risk involved which is far off. It's highly unnecessary but extremely intrusive and irreversible, that's not a decision for parents to make as the decision to do it is most likely adverse for the child (pain, removal of choice, irreversible stigma of a religion in the worst cases). It's not a matter of choice for parents, it's one of choice for the individual. Especially with the time frame eliminating most of the benefits cited (age 0 to 16/18 depending on law here, I'm not certain) during the period where choice of the individual would be overruled permanently.
I'm terribly sorry I can't read you mind over the internet, obviously my mistake and what part of your posts does what to the other. I'm very open to the option that I misunderstood you, but reading your previous post again I arrive at the same conclusion - I guess I don't understand German humor And even if this is a circle of people yelling I see no reason why we shouldn't observe some of the general rules of arguing, but /shrug. I think you have misunderstood me. I tried to pass it as an intervention which didn't matter either way really medically as the adverse outcome compared to the positive outcome was a matter of personal preference, hence should be decided by the parents, just like we let them do with any other likewise case in a childs upbringing. When you decided to jump in I was arguing against the notion that NO positive effects existed, which just isn't right - there are some. I never went into the the size of these, I merely stated they existed and defended their existence. Once again, I'm not pro-circumcision, but I'm pro-consistency.
Ok but you still just dodged the issue. Here benefits are greatly outweighed by the negative effects because you can choose other methods or delayed circumcision instead for just the same benefits. The decision to circumsize by choice at a later time is the dominating strategy here and therefore the court will always rule it to be unreasonable. It's perfectly consistent with prior rulings and the wording of the law. It's designed to protect children from their parents' choices because they are already individual with all included rights except not yet deemed able to act based on their own informed decisions. Therefore it is kind of the whole point to delay any procedure like this one until this point.
See similiar decisions on tattoos, piercings and traditional deformation of body parts in the protection area. The only thing to distinguish circumcision here would be the medical benefits which aren't exclusive to this procedure but can be achieved through sexual education and hygiene for the most part. As it can be replaced by a non- or much less harmful one, the specific procedure can't be enforced upon children.Last edit: 2012-06-28 08:36:28 |
|
|
| sevencck Canada. June 28 2012 08:33. Posts 632 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:20 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
im male. i am not sure why you are referring to sex appeal. i am more concerned about my children's self-esteem than sex appeal. i see no problem with a parent deciding this issue for their child, and have yet to see anyone refute that fact other than to say generically that people shouldn't decide issues for others. parents make a lot of decisions for their children; this being one of the relatively unimportant ones.
If only developing self esteem was as simple as getting a circumcision. You say this is as simple as a parent making a decision for a child, but it isn't. Let me ask you the following hypothetical question. Let's imagine a hypothetical society wherein parents decide the future career of their child. They fill in a piece of paper, and then the kid goes through life preparing for this job he's gotta do when he turns age X. Would you object to this practice? If so, why, since I could use your own argument to validate it (parents already decide issues for their children). |
| | I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein |
|
|
| Kickboxer Slovenia. June 28 2012 08:34. Posts 1049 | Profile Blog # |
Hey, why are people saying their chopped private looks better than mine? If I pull the hoodie back it looks just like yours, except yours can't wear a hat. Wouldn't you want a hat in a damp tunnel?
It's like a bald person saying they look better than people with hair  |
|
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 28 2012 08:35. Posts 8767 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 08:32 Derez wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 08:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:18 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:12 sevencck wrote:
On June 28 2012 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:56 StarBrift wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:28 PoisedYeTi wrote:
On June 28 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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.
Are you a female then? I'll assume you are, if you aren't I apologize. If you are, though, then I have to shake my head a bit. How familiar are you really with a guy's sexual experience with women? You're worried about sexual experiences with other girls later in life? You mean at the point where he is emotionally prepared to learn and cope with it himself without his mother watching over him? You mean at the point where he can have a circumcision if he so chooses? What if he turns out to be homosexual? Then what the females you've spoken to believe is irrelevant. What if homosexual guys prefer an uncircumcised penis? Wanna know the truth of the matter? Your opinion on the sex appeal of your future son's penis is at best irrelevant and at worst disturbing. The opinions of the women in his life on his penis are irrelevant (yes, believe me they are, if you want to debate this point, I'd be happy to do so). The opinions of the men in his life on his penis are irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is his own. Why don't you let him decide the matter for himself rather than making him wonder "why does my penis look the way it does because of the decision of a female?"
im male. i am not sure why you are referring to sex appeal. i am more concerned about my children's self-esteem than sex appeal. i see no problem with a parent deciding this issue for their child, and have yet to see anyone refute that fact other than to say generically that people shouldn't decide issues for others. parents make a lot of decisions for their children; this being one of the relatively unimportant ones.
There's nothing to be concerned about when it comes to your self-esteem due to circumcision when you live in Germany. The vast majority of people aren't circumcised, so you're not any different than anyone else. As a parent there is no need to even consider getting your kid circumcized if you're German. The only possible argument against it is 'religious freedom', which in all honesty, with the likelyhood that a child born into a religious family will become an atheist/agnostic/change religions, isn't a good enough. The importance of circumcision varies by what society you live in, and as a cultural neighbor to Germany, I honestly don't think anyone reasonable in Europe gives a shit.
i dont live in europe. i live in america, and my children will live in america. |
| |
|
| SnipedSoul Canada. June 28 2012 08:35. Posts 1741 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 08:34 Kickboxer wrote:Hey, why are people saying their chopped private looks better than mine? If I pull the hoodie back it looks just like yours, except yours can't wear a hat. Wouldn't you want a hat in a damp tunnel? It's like a bald person saying they look better than people with hair
You should always remove your hat in the presence of a lady. Where are your manners?! |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
