You should probably look in to having your eyelids removed, they could hold dirt and grime under there and also remove your finger and toe nails. Better remove your butt cheeks too, etc etc.
Na a tad extreme
German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
Na a tad extreme
This:
What do you mean "what do I think happens to them"? Why does something have to happen to them?
Indeed, I'd find it rather disturbing. A bit sickening, actually.
Unless it's for a genuine, researched medical reason it shouldn't be done. Religion ruins enough children/people's lives as it is without forcing a baby's foreskin to be chopped off. Some Hasidic jews suck the blood from the wound afterwards which is ****ing disgusting, traditional or religious or not. Recently 2 babies died of Herpies in New York I think and the government want to make it illegal. Damn Straight.
I believe that the baby will grow up without the right to decide if they want a foreskin or not. Scratch that, I know that is what will happen.
But the baby will also be brought up to believe that it is natural, either by way of religion or "everybody else is". If it were natural or intended, then we wouldn't have it in the first place.
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
Only to babies. The right to choose.
It's always been about babies, if you are 18 and want it done, fill your boots.
i find the best way to stop infections and dirt getting under the skin is to take a shower, they work really well and has kept mine clean from birth, touch wood, its stayed clean ever since, i can guarantee it works as i now have a little girl running about..
My thoughts might be my own, but that doesn't legitimise yours when they are directly affecting another person's life.
There is a difference in terms of the amount of pain, and the permanence of circumcision, but I wouldn't have a baby's ears pierced - there's no logic, or morally justifiable reason to do so.
The point here is that you're inflicting your will and beliefs on another person (who has no say or ability to defend themselves), which many of us believe is abhorrent.
There's nothing wrong with circumcision. What is wrong is witholding a child's right to choose for themselves.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Debate on Newsnight about it now
That is on female circumcision, not male circumcision.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Which is 1000 times worse.
At least the male version isn't done to prevent sexual pleasure.
.what an incredibly awful thing to say.
Are you so sure about that? Studies have been done which show that typically sensitivity, and even sex drive itself, is reduced after circumcision. Would that not fit in with the classic religious stance on sex being mainly, or solely designed for procreation and not recreation? It would be a 'perfect tool' for sexual oppression.
It is also not the subject of this thread....Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are two very different debates.
The Newsnight debate was dealing with female genital mutilation, not circumcision of Jewish and Muslim boys as you stated.
just where do you get this nonsense and what bearing does it have on you anyway? most US porn stars are cut and i suggest you check out a certain 'sex and the city' episode.
have you noticed that no girls have posted in this thread? that's right, that's how much it matters to females.
ftr. neither me nor my brother are cut but i know people who are. certainly doesn't seem to have done them any harm in the sex drive stakes that's for sure!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Its all ready been proven it doesnt make a difference in regards to sex drive and sensitivity, as a per a few pages back.
Seems some people like to regurgitate the same old nonsense even though its been proven otherwise or the very least unconclusive.
Secondly its not a disfigurement is it? considering its a common procedure carried out to enhance the look of the penis. One could argue its an disfigurement leaving it on.
I will concede to the point that the studies do vary somewhat, although there is enough negative effects to warrant it being outlawed (in terms of forced child mutilation). And regardless, there are plenty of studies which show that there is a negative effect on sex drive and pleasure. You can google them. You'll find that they are in the majority of either "No effect" or "Negative effect" rather than "positive effect".
The bearing it has on me is that I care about human suffering and I wish to help avoid unnecessary suffering in as many ways I can.
Your last point is ridiculous, if you consider that evidence, then you should consult your GP.
It is as much a comment on women's interest in the matter as it is the ratio of men to women on this forum and who are likely to want to discuss the subject whether it interests them or not.
Good for them, I was putting forth an idea - at least the concept of circumcision is backed up by traditional religious values, whether it has the desired effect on the large scale is irrelevant. As soon as one person suffers as a result of this misguided procedure, then it has become intolerable. Much like the death penalty.
As I have stated before on numerous occasions, if as a consenting adult, you wish to slice off a bit of your skin, then by all means. If it is for genuine medical reasons, not a bit of 'grime', then that is okay too. What is not okay, is children being forced to, because of religious or social beliefs, have their body defaced, deformed or mutilated. That is what the majority of rational people in this thread are saying.
What rubbish. How can you possibly be condoning harming a child for cosmetic reasons? It is not a disfigurement leaving it on as that's the way it was made!
Last edited: