Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

Doesn't seem like a huge issue to me.. I had mine done at age 21, don't regret it at all..

as in you dont have an issue with small boys being mutilated or you dont have an issue with circumcisions at all? at least at 21 you have the ability to consent.
 
as in you dont have an issue with small boys being mutilated or you dont have an issue with circumcisions at all? at least at 21 you have the ability to consent.

Oh of course, i don't agree with babies being mutilated.. Didn't take the time to read the actual article 2bh :P

They often don't use any form of anaesthetic, and i can 100% tell you that even with anaesthetic it is EXTREMELY painful for at least a month after having it done.

It should be something you consent to at a later age, although if it is medically justified as a baby then i don't see there being an issue.
 
As I already pointed out there isn't a problem there, research would indeed support it. DO you have any reason to think otherwise.

My point was that that shouldn't even be a requirement, as per the post were I've already explained that. What is your opinion on a child getting a tattoo for example?



It isn't an emotive argument, it is citing a practice that currently happens and that contains risk. A rabbi cutting off a part of the penis ought to be outlawed in general tbh... that is the bigger issue.
Your whole post is emotive any decision to curtail a religious practice needs to be carefully implemented and the process needs to be 100% clean and transparent.

I have already given my opinion on circumcision i.e. It is wrong but my opinion shouldn't sway the decision medical fact should. My opinion on child tattooing is hardly relevant. I fail to understand why you would seek to ban something so controversial without using an independant evidence based approach undertaken by experts?
 
Your whole post is emotive any decision to curtail a religious practice needs to be carefully implemented and the process needs to be 100% clean and transparent.

What is emotive about it?

I have already given my opinion on circumcision i.e. It is wrong but my opinion shouldn't sway the decision medical fact should. My opinion on child tattooing is hardly relevant.

It might illustrate why I'm arguing that even regardless of the medical issue I think it it wrong...

So what is it - what do you think of tattoos on children?

I fail to understand why you would seek to ban something so controversial without using an independant evidence based approach undertaken by experts?

Because you've failed to understand, have just skimmed over or have simply ignored my arguments. I've already pointed out that yes, of course, there is evidence of harm. I've asked you why on earth you'd even think otherwise or whether you have anything contrary to that? But my point is that there shouldn't even need to be - the fact is it is a permanent change carried out on someone without their consent. That is why I asked your opinion on say a small tattoo on children, arguably less harmful than cutting a bit of their private parts off (though granted not without risk in itself).
 
What is emotive about it?



It might illustrate why I'm arguing that even regardless of the medical issue I think it it wrong...

So what is it - what do you think of tattoos on children?



Because you've failed to understand, have just skimmed over or have simply ignored my arguments. I've already pointed out that yes, of course, there is evidence of harm. I've asked you why on earth you'd even think otherwise or whether you have anything contrary to that? But my point is that there shouldn't even need to be - the fact is it is a permanent change carried out on someone without their consent. That is why I asked your opinion on say a small tattoo on children, arguably less harmful than cutting a bit of their private parts off (though granted not without risk in itself).
I'm not going to enter into a circular argument I've said my piece, I haven't skim read your posts, I have already responded to all your points other than the spurious tattooing.
 
I'm not going to enter into a circular argument I've said my piece, I haven't skim read your posts, I have already responded to all your points other than the spurious tattooing.

I wasn't trying to turn this into circular argument, I was just a bit baffled about why you decided to repeatedly ask me about medical evidence when I'd explained already that of course there is evidence of harm but that my objection isn't confined to that but is also one of principle (which doesn't require medical evidence). To then quote me and ask me about medical evidence when also claiming that you read and understood what I'd said is a bit dubious to say the least... Though it is a bit illuminating that you won't be drawn into answering what should be a rather uncontroversial question about whether you think kids should have tattoos.
 
I think that it is ridiculous that in most of the first world, a female has the right to genital intactness, but a male does not. Imagine being born and right away after you've only taken a few breaths somebody is mutilating your penis. Anybody who thinks that this doesn't hurt the baby is delusional, and I invite you to go on the weird part of youtube and watch male babies reacting to being circumsized. They scream like they've been shot.

I agree with some earlier posters in this thread. If a person, once they are old enough to consent to the pain and to decide that they truly want to live without a foreskin, decides to have this done to their penis, all power to them. I don't know what a reasonable age would be for somebody to make that kind of decision... 16-18 maybe?
 
Circumcision is an operation, all operations carry risk. Lots of circumcisions go wrong, leaving you with pain or discomfort for life. Even if they "go to plan" like mine did, you lose sensitivity - all that skin with nerve endings is gone! Add a condom to that and I don't even bother having sex anymore, it's annoying when the girl's screaming her head off and you're not getting much out of it. As a consequence I'm alone and probably always will be.

Have a close friend with a similar story to yours, and he's the same way now, doesn't bother looking for a partner as he can only get himself to finish and with sex being a pretty big part of a relationship, it always led to the woman feeling like she wasn't good enough or that he wasn't interested.

Is sex really that much of a driver for your relationships? I know that it's important, but there are so many more aspects that can make sex a minor thing. To close yourself off like that due to sex only is sad...that's not all women want.

Good, religious Freedoms should not include anything that affects other people. Including your children.

Indeed.

Religion needs to become a over 18 hobby.

I actually agree with you. Until you can make up your own mind (maybe a bit younger than 18), doctrination is ludicrous.
 
Is sex really that much of a driver for your relationships? I know that it's important, but there are so many more aspects that can make sex a minor thing. To close yourself off like that due to sex only is sad...that's not all women want.

I don't know and I wouldn't feel comfortable interrogating my friend for more information, I'd imagine long term it's not but it's the impact it has short-term in the "honeymoon" phase where he said he really just can't be bothered with it as he gets very little from it, this then rubs off on her not being good enough or a perceived lack of attraction due to disinterest.

It's definitely not all women want, but a healthy sex life has been shown to make relationships longer lasting and more fulfilling. I guess he could look for a woman who has a low sex drive or something but to him, it just seems to be more effort than it's worth, which is cynical but without being in his situation is hard to understand.
 
Most of these 'religious' practices seem to stem from, originally, hot arid climates with little water and less sanitation. Moving to Reykjavic or Manchester or London etc. should immediately reset these requirements. Same as eating pork when we now have refrigeration and allowing an animal to die without bleeding out.
 
I don't know and I wouldn't feel comfortable interrogating my friend for more information, I'd imagine long term it's not but it's the impact it has short-term in the "honeymoon" phase where he said he really just can't be bothered with it as he gets very little from it, this then rubs off on her not being good enough or a perceived lack of attraction due to disinterest.

It's definitely not all women want, but a healthy sex life has been shown to make relationships longer lasting and more fulfilling. I guess he could look for a woman who has a low sex drive or something but to him, it just seems to be more effort than it's worth, which is cynical but without being in his situation is hard to understand.

Sounds like an isolated case, as previously mentioned.. I've been circumcised for the past 10 years.. Doesn't effect my sex life in any way.. if anything it improved it.
 
Sounds like an isolated case, as previously mentioned.. I've been circumcised for the past 10 years.. Doesn't effect my sex life in any way.. if anything it improved it.

Definitely isn't an isolated case when there are 2 cases in just this thread alone and many more online, in adulthood when you have it done you can still remain somewhat sensitive from the years it was covered up.

If it improved it then maybe you had issues with the foreskin being too tight or something? It can vary massively really depending on individual circumstances and when they have the procedure.
 
Definitely isn't an isolated case when there are 2 cases in just this thread alone and many more online, in adulthood when you have it done you can still remain somewhat sensitive from the years it was covered up.

If it improved it then maybe you had issues with the foreskin being too tight or something? It can vary massively really depending on individual circumstances and when they have the procedure.

I wouldn't of had it done if i didn't have issues to begin with.. I had phimosos and had the surgery done when i was 18 years old. Now i am pushing 30 i can honestly say i have had no issues in the bedroom, sensitivity is still present once things are underway.. if it was such an issue why are the majority of porn stars circumcised?

Talking from first hand experience here, unless you know the sensation of before and after you don't have a point of comparison, yes there is very little sensation when flaccid, you can wear jeans etc and not have any sensitivity.. But once engaging in foreplay, sex this changes quickly.. anecdotal testimony can only go so far.. So i wouldn't recommend formulating an opinion until you acquire more views from people who have actually had it done.
 
I wouldn't of had it done if i didn't have issues to begin with.. I had phimosos and had the surgery done when i was 18 years old. Now i am pushing 30 i can honestly say i have had no issues in the bedroom, sensitivity is still present once things are underway.. if it was such an issue why are the majority of porn stars circumcised?

Well if you had phimosis it was a no-brainer as from what I know it can make intercourse very uncomfortable, it's really no surprise that circumcision has improved things for you. A good deal of porn stars are American and had the procedure done at birth, I don't think that's really a case for having it done though as many porn stars have difficulty climaxing and with sensitivity, many of them are fueled by viagra and the "finishing" shots can be filmed separately from the rest of the act.
 
Last edited:
.. if it was such an issue why are the majority of porn stars circumcised?

The majority of porn stars are American and in America most men are circumcised, not due to a religious reason but hygiene and prevention of a number of medical issues can arise in men who are uncircumcised.
 
I wouldn't of had it done if i didn't have issues to begin with.. I had phimosos and had the surgery done when i was 18 years old. Now i am pushing 30 i can honestly say i have had no issues in the bedroom, sensitivity is still present once things are underway.. if it was such an issue why are the majority of porn stars circumcised?

Americans.
 
Yeah this should be the norm. If a kid gets to 18 and chooses they want to do it fine. But until then leave this barbaric practice in the past and leave metzitzah b’peh back there too.

Edit: To people who are at work, I wouldn't google image search that if you are unaware of it. Basically it is a practice where 'oral suction' is used after circumcision. Yes that is what you think it is. No it's not practiced widely. But it does go on.

Watch it, the Anti Defamation League will be on your case for promoting "Blood Libel" :p

(I suspect that this practice is most likely to be the origin of the various accusations of baby blood drinking rituals that Jews have historically been accused of, As with the best of conspiracy theories, the most convincing ones are where an uncomfortable truth is exaggerated and misinterpreted rather than where the whole thing is completely made up. With the Blood Libel, there is just enough truth there to make the idea stick, especially since this practice would have been far more routine in the past)
 
Back
Top Bottom