Well, nobody's forcing anyone to get it done anyway.
It's really up to the individual if they want to get it done or not.
It looks better and cleaner.
How on earth is circumcision legal?
- Thread starter Pate
- Start date
Well, nobody's forcing anyone to get it done anyway.
It's really up to the individual if they want to get it done or not.
It looks better and cleaner.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
The Chinese used to bind young girl's feet, some African peoples stretch the ear lobes and lips, some African and Asian people place rings around the neck in order to stretch it - all barbaric practices by underdeveloped, backward primitives that are mostly dying out.
Meanwhile, retarded religious fanatics keep the practice of genital mutilation alive
Meanwhile, retarded religious fanatics keep the practice of genital mutilation alive
Well, nobody's forcing anyone to get it done anyway.
It's really up to the individual if they want to get it done or not.
It looks better and cleaner.
It's forced on young boys by the parents every day in the name for religion. They don't have a choice.
It's so painful that when done medically a general anaesthetic is used.
A study based in Africa where people don't have clean water is relevant to the UK how exactly? The USA's HIV rate is considerably higher than the UK.
If a doctor did that he would probably be arrested for child molestation, how the government does pander to religious child abuse.
Last edited:
Not on babies its not
...they use a local anaesthetic rather than general as it could cause complications...my nephew had his done after a few days of his birth and the doctor used a local rather than general anaesthetic.The Chinese used to bind young girl's feet, some African peoples stretch the ear lobes and lips, some African and Asian people place rings around the neck in order to stretch it - all barbaric practices by underdeveloped, backward primitives that are mostly dying out.
Meanwhile, retarded religious fanatics keep the practice of genital mutilation alive
And we fill our women with silicone and botox and cover them in face paint. What's your point?
The difference is, in most cases at least, they choose to have that done to them. It's not forced on them.
ROFL.. i was gonna post about breast enlargement and liposuction, and what was his viewpoint on that, but you got in there before me as I decided to post from the PC rather than my mobile
The difference is that before either of those procedures are done the person in question needs to be over 16 and needs to consent.
If you as an adult want to cut bits off yourself, feel free. You shouldn't however be able to force it on a child, let them choose for themselves when they are old enough. Obvious exception being if it is medically required.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Speak for yourself sonny
Neck rings... ear lobes... ? I believe those are cultural and they choose to do them as well.
You must be careful here, because cicumcision is generally done at birth in non-religious circles, whilst done as a coming of age etc in religion.
Yep, and I don't see an issue with anything, circumcision included if the person chooses to do so.
Vonhelmet would have a point if there were 6 year olds walking around with 32DD implants... but I've not seen any
It's done to very young babies in Judaism - 8 days old I believe. Far too young an age for the child to consent in any way.
EDIT: The vast majority of people who disagree with the practice of circumcision do so because there is often a lack of consent, there is a huge difference between circumsion at, or close to birth, and a devoted adult Muslim choosing to undergo the procedure.
Last edited:
Vonhelmet would have a point if there were 6 year olds walking around with 32DD implants... but I've not seen any
Lots of stretching while you're in the bath and lots of sex helps. I had the same issue and I didn't need the chop, tis nice and comfortable these days.
It's good to hear from someone who has actually experienced both sides, rather than those guessing what it's like for others!
Also, the idea that removal of the foreskin is in any way akin to female circumcision (which generally means removal of the clitoris or more) is totally bogus.
The equivalent to removal of the clitoris in men would be chopping off the head of the penis, which is clearly far, far more brutal than removal of the foreskin.
And the equivalent of male circumcision in women would be removal of the clitoral hood (hoodectomy), which some women do choose to have, oddly enough to improve sexual stimulation.
Not on babies its not
It varies, but the fact that he had to use a local aesthetic demonstrates that it's very painful, as the WHO clearly states.
It isn't quite equivalent though because you're removing the most sensitive part of the penis and reducing the sensitivity of the tissue that's left.
Last edited:
Your premise is false, so your conclusion is false. Female circumcision does not generally mean "removal of the clitoris or more". It's politically effective to take the most extreme form and lead people to believe that all forms are the most extreme form, because few people check what they're told.
There isn't a direct parallel because there are some physical differences between male and female genitalia and there's no equivalent to completely removing the protection of the penile glans.
The closest equivalent would be cutting off the clitoral hood and enough of the labia to make the same degree of difference to appearance (which would be quite a lot). Which is what happens in most cases of female circumcusion.
Outside of religion, the reason why circumcision started to be forced on infants and children was to stop masturbation in Victorian times, when they had an obsession with masturbation.
Anyone who doesn't believe me should check history for themself. It's not ancient history and it's not hidden.
Imagine these scenarions happening today:
i) Some people found a new religion and claim that it requires them to cut off the clitoral hood and much of the labia from all their female children at a very young age.
ii) Some people claim that masturbation is wrong and morally dirty and that as a result they cut off the clitoral hood and much of the labia from all their female children at a very young age in the belief that this will stop them masturbating.
Does anyone think either of those scenarios would be considered good enough reason to ignore the laws against mutilating children?
So why is it OK to do it to boys (worse, actually, as there isn't a direct parallel, but that's the closest) for those reasons?