Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (94 users) | |
|
| PassionFruit June 29 2012 11:16. Posts 177 | Profile Blog # |
On June 29 2012 11:04 r.Evo wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 10:59 PassionFruit wrote:
It's funny where society draws its line. First trimester abortion, okay. After birth foreskin slice, not okay. Woe to the baby who doesn't make it through the first trimester. It's literally the arbitrary bright-line death v. the full plethora of human rights. Of course I'm being facetious and can't really conjure a much better solution, but it's pretty ridiculous when you actually take a step back and look at the entire situation. But it's nice to think the rules are suposed to be perfect.
Plus this would probably never fly in the US. First amendment anyone? This ruling is such a facial affront against the religious custom of circumcision. Plus why is the judge making this decision? It should be the leg passing the law. Not the judge reclassifying some age old custom as assault. He's gonna get reversed oh so very fast.
Pretty sure it won't get reversed since it's in line with the other European countries who have laws on this issue. In case you didn't notice, this decision was made to preserve the religious freedom and physical integrity of the child. If you want to be religious and cut things off your body, fine. That doesn't give you the right to impose it on anyone else, not even your children. And that is called religious freedom.
Right, right... You've got the interest of the child, the interest of the parents, and the interests of society. Balance, balance, balance and you come on up top with the child. There are a lot of ways to do this arbitrary balancing depending on how you emphasize the rights and the entity that holds 'em.
:/ It's a judgement call in the end. I don't really care how it balances it out, and can recognize plausible arguments where the scale will tip in favor of the parent, child, or even the state. In Europe, things are more liberal than the US so you'll get different results. Depending on your idiosyncratic values, you'll reach different results despite if everyone is looking at the exact same piece of evidence.
So I say leave it to majority opinion. If the people want it regulated, then give it to 'em. The issue here is that it was a judge, not the legislature that made this change. Legislative law =/= judicial common law. There's a difference between representatives coming to a decision and one man coming to one. |
|
|
| David451 United States. June 29 2012 11:29. Posts 490 | Profile # |
Better sex comes from a healthy body and mind. Pleasure is in the brain, not the penis. At best, the penis is just sending suggestions to the brain that you should be experiencing pleasure. The volume of the suggestion (more nerve endings) doesn't make a difference, because your brain adapts. A healthy dude without a foreskin is having way better sex than some buttery fat uncircumcised neckbeard, and vice versa.
All that said, this is a human rights question, not a question of practicality. |
| | Shae: I don't want to play. Tyrion: It's fun! Look at the fun we're having! |
|
|
| zbedlam Australia. June 29 2012 12:19. Posts 372 | Profile # |
More nerves = more sensitivity = more pleasure. Your example is definitely right, but saying volume of nerves is irrelevant is wrong.
Unless i'm mistaken, the foreskin also reduces chafing during sex.
The arguments about cleanliness only apply if the male doesn't fold his foreskin back, which healthy men do during puberty.
Only argument in favor of circumcision is purely aesthetic, and that's entirely based on opinion. |
|
|
 fatfail United States. June 29 2012 13:24. Posts 386 | Profile Blog # |
On June 29 2012 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:50 ggrrg wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:43 stratmatt wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:39 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:47 Pholon wrote:
OK hypothetical question. What if your son turns out ginger. It's not the norm, gingers are frequently bullied, etc. Let's say, hypothetically, a minor medical procedure would de-ginger him. Would you do it?
to deflect, that is not a minor medical procedure as it would require a full re-work of his genes. i would do circumcisions and i would remove moles, birthmarks, etc. i would not change the color of my child's skin, eyes, hair, etc. i am not seeking perfection. you are going to extremes, i am not trying to create hitler's perfect race. i am advocating a minor, common procedure so that my child would fit in with his peer group, which although diverse as to certain factors is commonly circumcised.
So just to be clear, in a world where oh I don't know, maybe cut off a bit of earlobe, a bit of eyelid, a bit of nose cartilage at birth is the norm, you would do that too for your son? Just so he doesn't get bullied. Bawww Btw your son is going to be more worried about having a small dick than anything else if you're worried porn is going to affect him. And why does everyone think foreskin is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to pull back? You do realize that when men get an erection their foreskin pretty much retracts and stays that way. It's not like opening a bank vault or anything. If the skin pulls back while I'm flaccid then it's uncomfortable as fuck because the glans keeps rubbing against my clothing, that must be something very strange for circumcised people to understand because your glans is about as sensitive as your elbow.
On June 29 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
probably not. the hypothetical just seems so unrealistic its hard to even consider.
Don't you see? It's only hard to consider because it's not the norm. Oh sure it's easy to consider cutting off your son's dick because hey bro, everyone else is doing it, but de-gingering him, woa that's so foreign to me how is that even possible. Living in a world where 75% of people don't get their dicks cut, getting your dick cut is foreign to me. Do you finally get it now? It's only Americans with their Fahrenheit and inches/feet that they think is "normal" while the rest of the world laugh at them. This is part of that "deal with it we're Americans" thing and it's pretty retarded.
You seem pretty upset that we enjoy our penises. Also, my penis is very sensitive, not sure where you are getting the elbow comparison. You seem to really be grasping at straws.
If you were not circumcised, you would understand the elbow comparison. It might be over the top, but simply the fact that you (and every other circumcised man) can wear pants and not feel discomfort shows that circumcised penises are less sensitive. Everybody who has his foreskin intact will tell you that normally if the foreskin is retracted, contact with any fabric is quite nasty.
if you get an erection while you are wearing pants, does that hurt because of the sensitivity?
Yes it hurts like fuck. I can't even touch it with my hand without causing discomfort. |
| | Kong fan... <3 Stork <3 Jangbi <3 Yellow <3 Fantasy |
|
|
| teapot United Kingdom. June 29 2012 16:51. Posts 179 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 13:24 fatfail wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:50 ggrrg wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:43 stratmatt wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:39 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:47 Pholon wrote:
OK hypothetical question. What if your son turns out ginger. It's not the norm, gingers are frequently bullied, etc. Let's say, hypothetically, a minor medical procedure would de-ginger him. Would you do it?
to deflect, that is not a minor medical procedure as it would require a full re-work of his genes. i would do circumcisions and i would remove moles, birthmarks, etc. i would not change the color of my child's skin, eyes, hair, etc. i am not seeking perfection. you are going to extremes, i am not trying to create hitler's perfect race. i am advocating a minor, common procedure so that my child would fit in with his peer group, which although diverse as to certain factors is commonly circumcised.
So just to be clear, in a world where oh I don't know, maybe cut off a bit of earlobe, a bit of eyelid, a bit of nose cartilage at birth is the norm, you would do that too for your son? Just so he doesn't get bullied. Bawww Btw your son is going to be more worried about having a small dick than anything else if you're worried porn is going to affect him. And why does everyone think foreskin is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to pull back? You do realize that when men get an erection their foreskin pretty much retracts and stays that way. It's not like opening a bank vault or anything. If the skin pulls back while I'm flaccid then it's uncomfortable as fuck because the glans keeps rubbing against my clothing, that must be something very strange for circumcised people to understand because your glans is about as sensitive as your elbow.
On June 29 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
probably not. the hypothetical just seems so unrealistic its hard to even consider.
Don't you see? It's only hard to consider because it's not the norm. Oh sure it's easy to consider cutting off your son's dick because hey bro, everyone else is doing it, but de-gingering him, woa that's so foreign to me how is that even possible. Living in a world where 75% of people don't get their dicks cut, getting your dick cut is foreign to me. Do you finally get it now? It's only Americans with their Fahrenheit and inches/feet that they think is "normal" while the rest of the world laugh at them. This is part of that "deal with it we're Americans" thing and it's pretty retarded.
You seem pretty upset that we enjoy our penises. Also, my penis is very sensitive, not sure where you are getting the elbow comparison. You seem to really be grasping at straws.
If you were not circumcised, you would understand the elbow comparison. It might be over the top, but simply the fact that you (and every other circumcised man) can wear pants and not feel discomfort shows that circumcised penises are less sensitive. Everybody who has his foreskin intact will tell you that normally if the foreskin is retracted, contact with any fabric is quite nasty.
if you get an erection while you are wearing pants, does that hurt because of the sensitivity?
Yes it hurts like fuck. I can't even touch it with my hand without causing discomfort.
That is because the only place your glans is meant to be is either in your foreskin or in a vagina. |
|
|
| yeint Estonia. June 29 2012 20:42. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 08:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:15 JitnikoVi wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:11 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:10 JitnikoVi wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:04 JitnikoVi wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:56 Pholon wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:47 Pholon wrote:
OK hypothetical question. What if your son turns out ginger. It's not the norm, gingers are frequently bullied, etc. Let's say, hypothetically, a minor medical procedure would de-ginger him. Would you do it?
to deflect, that is not a minor medical procedure as it would require a full re-work of his genes. i would do circumcisions and i would remove moles, birthmarks, etc. i would not change the color of my child's skin, eyes, hair, etc. i am not seeking perfection. you are going to extremes, i am not trying to create hitler's perfect race. i am advocating a minor, common procedure so that my child would fit in with his peer group, which although diverse as to certain factors is commonly circumcised.
In my hypothetical, it's a minor procedure. kid goes in, doc presses a button, 2 minutes later it's done, no side effects, no health risks. would you do it? What you're saying is "im not seeking perfection unless it's a minor procedure". So would you?
probably not. the hypothetical just seems so unrealistic its hard to even consider.
i dont understand how u can possibly say that your 'not seeking perfection' and this is only so your child would 'fit in with his peer group' and then relating to circumcision, this is so silly i cant help but imagine your trolling
perfection requires more than a common, minor surgery.
you forgot to read the second part, they go together
i apologize. i don't know what your point is.
for future reference, try rereading it in this case ill help you out cuz your being bombarded with people contradicting you and must respond to everything immediately, how does a circumcision relate to 'fitting in with his peer group'?
because the peer group have all been circumcised in the U.S. (or at least the majority).
This is not true at all. Look up circumcision rates in the US.
From the Wiki article: "In 2005, about 56 percent of male newborns were circumcised prior to release from the hospital according to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality." |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| Art.FeeL June 29 2012 20:49. Posts 1155 | Profile Blog # |
On June 29 2012 13:24 fatfail wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:50 ggrrg wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:43 stratmatt wrote:
On June 29 2012 08:39 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 29 2012 07:47 Pholon wrote:
OK hypothetical question. What if your son turns out ginger. It's not the norm, gingers are frequently bullied, etc. Let's say, hypothetically, a minor medical procedure would de-ginger him. Would you do it?
to deflect, that is not a minor medical procedure as it would require a full re-work of his genes. i would do circumcisions and i would remove moles, birthmarks, etc. i would not change the color of my child's skin, eyes, hair, etc. i am not seeking perfection. you are going to extremes, i am not trying to create hitler's perfect race. i am advocating a minor, common procedure so that my child would fit in with his peer group, which although diverse as to certain factors is commonly circumcised.
So just to be clear, in a world where oh I don't know, maybe cut off a bit of earlobe, a bit of eyelid, a bit of nose cartilage at birth is the norm, you would do that too for your son? Just so he doesn't get bullied. Bawww Btw your son is going to be more worried about having a small dick than anything else if you're worried porn is going to affect him. And why does everyone think foreskin is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to pull back? You do realize that when men get an erection their foreskin pretty much retracts and stays that way. It's not like opening a bank vault or anything. If the skin pulls back while I'm flaccid then it's uncomfortable as fuck because the glans keeps rubbing against my clothing, that must be something very strange for circumcised people to understand because your glans is about as sensitive as your elbow.
On June 29 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
probably not. the hypothetical just seems so unrealistic its hard to even consider.
Don't you see? It's only hard to consider because it's not the norm. Oh sure it's easy to consider cutting off your son's dick because hey bro, everyone else is doing it, but de-gingering him, woa that's so foreign to me how is that even possible. Living in a world where 75% of people don't get their dicks cut, getting your dick cut is foreign to me. Do you finally get it now? It's only Americans with their Fahrenheit and inches/feet that they think is "normal" while the rest of the world laugh at them. This is part of that "deal with it we're Americans" thing and it's pretty retarded.
You seem pretty upset that we enjoy our penises. Also, my penis is very sensitive, not sure where you are getting the elbow comparison. You seem to really be grasping at straws.
If you were not circumcised, you would understand the elbow comparison. It might be over the top, but simply the fact that you (and every other circumcised man) can wear pants and not feel discomfort shows that circumcised penises are less sensitive. Everybody who has his foreskin intact will tell you that normally if the foreskin is retracted, contact with any fabric is quite nasty.
if you get an erection while you are wearing pants, does that hurt because of the sensitivity?
Yes it hurts like fuck. I can't even touch it with my hand without causing discomfort.
Don't know how old are or even if you had intercourse with a woman. But how much do you last in bed? I mean if it is so sensitive you shouldn't last long. Now this is a serious question, I am not trolling. I'd like to know the answer, because if penis is less sensitive it would mean that it can last longer?!
|
| | I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work the luckier I am. |
|
|
| Greentellon Finland. June 29 2012 20:56. Posts 1110 | Profile # |
This is a good ruling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
If this applies to women, it should apply to men too.
--
*edit* "Circumcision gives you a better sex experience" - and since when boys younger than 10 years old were expected to have sex? If it really gives a better experience then you can still do it as an adult.
Also, if you can do circumcision on a child then you can also do stuff like gender switching treatment etc. "It's the parents choice what to do with the childs body after all".Last edit: 2012-06-29 21:05:03 |
|
|
| yeint Estonia. June 29 2012 21:00. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
Apparently their counterargument is "parents are allowed to make all sorts of decisions for their children, it's just a piece of skin".
They can't accept that there's anything wrong with circumcision of infants because they can't divorce that idea from the idea that there's something wrong with their penises.
71 pages now, and I have not seen one person change their mind about any facet of this topic. |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| PoisedYeTi Australia. June 29 2012 21:03. Posts 163 | Profile # |
Has anyone read exactly why they cut off a bit a of a child's penis?
It is written it creates a covenant between them and god lol cut off a bit of your dick and you can be with god too ^^
Generations of families multilating their childrens sexual organs to get closer to god. Yeah i'll catch the next boat, thanks.Last edit: 2012-06-29 21:05:49 |
| | "Just read game like book" -WhiteRa |
|
|
| 3DGlaDOS Germany. June 29 2012 21:10. Posts 605 | Profile # |
The argumentation of saying the right of physical integrity of the child is higher than the right of religious freedom is reasonable to me although it still seems unclear what exactly the harm of a circumcision is.
What really bothers me about this court decision is that opponents of vaccination still can deny vaccination to their children because of their beliefs. (Same with treatment with homeopathy, although this doesn't necessarily do harm)
On a religious note: Although I'm not really religious i found this really interesting. (It's in german though, it's mainly telling the religious/philosophical reasons for the symbolic act of circumcision)
Edit: The guy above me should really read this to expand his close-minded and biased view on religion, sadly i can't find an english versionLast edit: 2012-06-29 21:16:42 |
| | Hello Sir, do you have a minute for atheism? |
|
|
| PoisedYeTi Australia. June 29 2012 21:17. Posts 163 | Profile # |
+ Show Spoiler +'Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th-century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:
In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.'
more food for thought of why circumcision became prelevant even in non-jewish/muslim countries. Apparently as a form of sexual opression.
edit- taken from wiki
+ Show Spoiler +Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[40] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'" Last edit: 2012-06-29 21:21:02 |
| | "Just read game like book" -WhiteRa |
|
|
| Poffel June 29 2012 21:27. Posts 307 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:03 PoisedYeTi wrote:
Has anyone read exactly why they cut off a bit a of a child's penis?
It is written it creates a covenant between them and god lol cut off a bit of your dick and you can be with god too ^^
Generations of families multilating their childrens sexual organs to get closer to god. Yeah i'll catch the next boat, thanks.
Apart from ridicule and polemics, which obviously aren't really fit to stimulate conversation on that topic, I think this raises indeed an interesting question.
Given that the image of God upheld in most modern mainstream communities is that of a benevolent, merciful, and just entity, I personally have a hard time understanding how to reconciliate this image with such teachings as the punishment of uncircumcised children... what springs to mind is e.g. God's intent on killing an infant (Mose, no less) in the Biblical verses that are the hagiographic foundation of the tradition at stake.
I personally know that these and similar (e.g. the crippling of Jacob at mt. Jabbok) verses are topics of very controversial discussion about the image of God in modern Christian theology, but I've got no idea about these debates in the other Abrahamic religions... maybe someone who is more knowledgable on this issue could provide some details? |
|
|
| Figgy Canada. June 29 2012 21:37. Posts 1286 | Profile # |
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.Last edit: 2012-06-29 21:38:01 |
| | Bug Fixes Fixed an issue where, when facing a SlayerS terran, completing a hatchery would cause a medivac and 8 marines to randomly spawn nearby and attack it. |
|
|
| Nizaris Belgium. June 29 2012 21:42. Posts 2185 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:37 Figgy wrote:
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.
how can u say that cutting a bit off some1's penis is not damage? How can you say that reducing some1 sexual sensitivity doesn't do any actual damage? do you even have any idea what you are talking about?
You don't need to be circumcised to be in porn either, maybe in the US but that is irrelevant.
Purely cosmetic then, how about you let your son figure it out for himself instead of forcing your subjective judgement upon him. Or maybe you want to risk a penectomy to your son?
Making it illegal is the logical step to end baseless religious oppression.
"Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly [...] because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time. " Bullshit, that's just your brain trying to justify why your penis is cut.Last edit: 2012-06-29 21:48:38 |
|
|
| Shottaz United Kingdom. June 29 2012 21:56. Posts 172 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:42 Nizaris wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 21:37 Figgy wrote:
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.
how can u say that cutting a bit off some1's penis is not damage? How can you say that reducing some1 sexual sensitivity doesn't do any actual damage? do you even have any idea what you are talking about? You don't need to be circumcised to be in porn either, maybe in the US but that is irrelevant. Purely cosmetic then, how about you let your son figure it out for himself instead of forcing your subjective judgement upon him. Or maybe you want to risk a penectomy to your son? Making it illegal is the logical step to end baseless religious oppression. "Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly [...] because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time. " Bullshit, that's just your brain trying to justify why your penis is cut.
I agree with him, I got cut out of choice at 22 years old because i didnt like the look of it... I knew it was a risk because I might have hated it after the op but it was one of the best decisions I have made about my body. |
| |
|
| Nizaris Belgium. June 29 2012 22:11. Posts 2185 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:56 Shottaz wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 21:42 Nizaris wrote:
On June 29 2012 21:37 Figgy wrote:
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.
how can u say that cutting a bit off some1's penis is not damage? How can you say that reducing some1 sexual sensitivity doesn't do any actual damage? do you even have any idea what you are talking about? You don't need to be circumcised to be in porn either, maybe in the US but that is irrelevant. Purely cosmetic then, how about you let your son figure it out for himself instead of forcing your subjective judgement upon him. Or maybe you want to risk a penectomy to your son? Making it illegal is the logical step to end baseless religious oppression. "Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly [...] because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time. " Bullshit, that's just your brain trying to justify why your penis is cut.
I agree with him, I got cut out of choice at 22 years old because i didnt like the look of it... I knew it was a risk because I might have hated it after the op but it was one of the best decisions I have made about my body.
it's great that you had the choice. If only it was like that for most ppl.. i don't have any problem with it if you consciously chose it, you are free to do whatever you want with your dick 
The problem i have with it is parents forcing their judgement and risking their childs life/penis/sexuality without his consent.Last edit: 2012-06-29 22:14:11 |
|
|
| teapot United Kingdom. June 29 2012 22:12. Posts 179 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:56 Shottaz wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 21:42 Nizaris wrote:
On June 29 2012 21:37 Figgy wrote:
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.
how can u say that cutting a bit off some1's penis is not damage? How can you say that reducing some1 sexual sensitivity doesn't do any actual damage? do you even have any idea what you are talking about? You don't need to be circumcised to be in porn either, maybe in the US but that is irrelevant. Purely cosmetic then, how about you let your son figure it out for himself instead of forcing your subjective judgement upon him. Or maybe you want to risk a penectomy to your son? Making it illegal is the logical step to end baseless religious oppression. "Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly [...] because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time. " Bullshit, that's just your brain trying to justify why your penis is cut.
I agree with him, I got cut out of choice at 22 years old because i didnt like the look of it... I knew it was a risk because I might have hated it after the op but it was one of the best decisions I have made about my body.
I'm not sure how relevant your decision was considering you made it as a _consenting adult_ Go ahead and mutilate yourself all you want. Other people do all sorts of gross shit to their bodies too that they are presumably happy with. If you are happy with it good for you I suppose.
But, we are talking about preventing this happening to unconsenting babies for no good reason whatsoever. |
|
|
| FreddYCooL Sweden. June 29 2012 22:13. Posts 415 | Profile # |
On June 29 2012 21:37 Figgy wrote:
Non-circumsized penis are extremely ugly.
There is a reason you need to be circumsized to be in porn, because guys look hidious without it. At least that's how it's been seen in Western Culture for a very, very long time.
Making it illegal is nuts, it doesn't do any actual damage to the child.
So? Thats your opinion, let your son make that decision for himself when he is 15 or 18. Whether or not his penis looks pretty wont most likely be a problem before that.
And also it would be more correct to write US instead of Western culture, circumcision is much more uncommon in Europe. |
|
|
| Velr Switzerland. June 29 2012 22:15. Posts 5092 | Profile Blog # |
| There are plenty of non circumised dicks in porn..... I wonder what you are watching.. |
|
|
| 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
