Shiki_
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
Speech Attacking Circumcision in Judaism
- Thread starter Panda1
- Start date
off duty ninja
Member
You mentioned in an earlier post that you had to be circumcised as an adult. Do you mind sharing why? I understand if you don't want to share but maybe the very fact it may need to be done later when it will be much more traumatic is why it is still done on children.
I think the people equating cutting off a woman's clit with removing some foreskin from the penis are completely wrong too. I am not even religious but I do come from a christian background. I am sure that probably did play a part but it also is fairly common practice in the US.
I can see where people are coming from with the argument that it is mutilation and I am someone who thinks plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes is disgusting. I see how that can make me appear a hypocrite but I guess that just means I am human.
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
I find this topic of discussion hilarious. The people most vehemently against circumcision, are usually, those who are not circumcized.
You very rarely hear someone who was circumsized as a child, complain about it.
I think that the uncut guys are well aware of how disgusting many women find uncut dicks, and they hate us, cut guys for it.
We don't need you to fight for our dicks. Just do the right thing, and make sure your kids get cut at a young age,so they do t need to live with the shame that ya'll have. They'll thank you for it.
You very rarely hear someone who was circumsized as a child, complain about it.
I think that the uncut guys are well aware of how disgusting many women find uncut dicks, and they hate us, cut guys for it.
We don't need you to fight for our dicks. Just do the right thing, and make sure your kids get cut at a young age,so they do t need to live with the shame that ya'll have. They'll thank you for it.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
I fail to understand how you jumped to such a wild conclusion that because I am ignorant in one subject, I must not read regularly or be interested in learning in general. There's no reason for such petty insults here...
Based on the little info you gave me, female circumcision seems awful and is a danger to women. It doesn't seem like something harmless and perhaps even beneficial like male circumcision. But again, I am ignorant on the subject, and I'm not going to just take your word for it...
LordOfChaos
Member
Honestly it's like some adults push it because it's their own sexual preference or because it was done to them and it's what they're familiar with, and not any objective look at the data, and pushing that on babies is entirely fucked up. I say they do it for their own preference because the vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons' Association.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report's conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare "considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure."
Royal College of Surgeons of England
"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |
British Medical Association
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual's relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."
Australian College of Paediatrics:
"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:
The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:
"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children's Ombudsman is opposed as well.
The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is "an assault and should be banned."
The Danish Medical Association is "fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. 'It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.'"
Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related causes each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes).
The posts of people posting dicks still work science...Well duh, any culture that did it would go extinct if not. It doesn't take away the fact that it's against the right to personal autonomy, it's not like a vaccine. 'My body, my choice' appears to have a brain fart at a male child who will grow into an adult with his own preferences.
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons' Association.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report's conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare "considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure."
Royal College of Surgeons of England
"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |
British Medical Association
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual's relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."
Australian College of Paediatrics:
"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:
The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:
"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children's Ombudsman is opposed as well.
The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is "an assault and should be banned."
The Danish Medical Association is "fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. 'It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.'"
Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related causes each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes).
The posts of people posting dicks still work science...Well duh, any culture that did it would go extinct if not. It doesn't take away the fact that it's against the right to personal autonomy, it's not like a vaccine. 'My body, my choice' appears to have a brain fart at a male child who will grow into an adult with his own preferences.
Last edited:
TheDreadLord
Member
Liking or not, it is a really dumb practice if done due to some religious bullshit. If done for medical reasons or as a rational decision than it is fine.
Zog
Banned
You must have stats on this?
Try to imagine the shitstorm if you said that women should have their genitals cut because men prefer 'cut women'.
Last edited:
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
I don't have stats on it, because there aren't enough cut people complaining for anyone to bother doing a study. I've seen threads on here and on Reset about the topic, and in total seen 1 person be upset about it, and he was cut in his teens. I don't know anyone in real life who isn't happy about it either. You got stats to show that we're unhappy being cut?
Female genital mutilation is a completely different topic, and a stupid whataboutism to make.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
You made a statement that most people complaining about circumcision are not circumcised but can't back it up. Did it occur to you that people just don't bother to tell you if they are circumcised or not because it's not an important detail. You can be against FGM and not be female just like you can be against MGM and not be male and/or circumcised. You are just looking for reasons to dismiss the people who are against Male Genital Mutilation. The whole idea that 'women prefer it so it's ok' is ridiculous.
Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, enjoy your double standard.
Last edited:
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
You're asking me to prove a negative. It's dumb, but considering that your arguing about other men's dicks, expected.
If there were many circumcised men complaining about it, you'd have no trouble backing that up.
Are we complaining that it looks better, or smells better? Are we complaining about the benefits that some studies show?
Or is it the age old complaint that sex just doesn't feel good enough, and our partners are tired of us lasting longer?
Zog
Banned
This is the kind of dishonest argument that should be reported. We are debating the morality of mutilating the genitals of newborn babies.
Last edited:
Air Zombie Meat
Member
You sound just as biased as the supposed people you're talking about. No one should be ashamed of being circumsized or not.
The Incarnation
Member
Ahh, yes. Never does with you religious people.
You think of the flesh too much.
Hence why you never quite understand the whole circumcision without hands thing.
Last edited:
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
That's some resetera nonsense right there.
These babies grow into adults, like myself and my friends, and if we had an issue with it, we would voice it, and stop the process from happening to our kids.
You think because we're cut, we can't fight for ourselves?
I was cut for religious reasons, if I have a boy, he'll be cut for his benefit.
Zog
Banned
You assume that you speak for all circumcised men. You don't speak for me. You also assume that only circumcised men can have an opinion on this matter. Sooner or later MGM will be illegal just like FGM is and then I guess you will be unable to cut your son for 'his benefit'.
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
I'm not saying that they should be ashamed, but it seems some are.
When I was single, I really appreciated uncut guys. I can't count how many women said they were relieved to see that I was cut.
Zog
Banned
Anything else you think should be done to newborn males babies to please women?
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
You were cut as a newborn? You're as entitled to your opinion as I am then. If you can put together a large group of cut people who feel the same way, you might make some political inroads.
I doubt you'll ever make it illegal, and even if it becomes illegal, the process won't stop.
It's just an added benefit.
Also by pleasing women, women please us.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
This is an odd case in which the roles are a bit reversed, because the undeniable contradiction of the no-circumcision crowd here is that they keep attempting to rhetorically situate the matter as strictly a religion vs. reason debate, when -- as previously noted -- the research is pretty much uniform now in showing that there are indeed several significant enough health benefits, whereas zero supposed negative effects (including the "decreased pleasure" boogeyman, etc) have stood up to any research scrutiny over time. There really is no scientific case to mark this as anything other than a reasonably helpful hygienic alteration, and to disagree with that, in the face of the current state of research, pretty much puts you in line with the deep end of anti-vaxxers.
But the real heat and sole motivation of the debate has nothing to do with medicine or science, and never did -- it's a philosophical dispute over some notion of autonomy. My take is that the concept of "consent" has been stretched to pure absurdity by the liberal / individualist crowd at this point. Childhood and joining into basic cultural practices of your family or group is simply never going to be reducible to a series of autonomous choices by the person, because the hidden reality of any concept of individualism is that autonomy has no inherent meaning or status in a vacuum... you achieve some level of self-mastery and self-direction only as an outcome from being inculturated into a time and a place that bootstraps you, after many years, into having internalized enough to make your "own" decisions out of that well of teaching. To ask an infant to consent in this instance is bordering on asking it to consent to its pronouns... and if you take the latter seriously, God help you. Because at that point you've adopted a faith in atomistic autonomy so fanatical that it is without question far more superstitious than any of the religious beliefs you fear.
But the real heat and sole motivation of the debate has nothing to do with medicine or science, and never did -- it's a philosophical dispute over some notion of autonomy. My take is that the concept of "consent" has been stretched to pure absurdity by the liberal / individualist crowd at this point. Childhood and joining into basic cultural practices of your family or group is simply never going to be reducible to a series of autonomous choices by the person, because the hidden reality of any concept of individualism is that autonomy has no inherent meaning or status in a vacuum... you achieve some level of self-mastery and self-direction only as an outcome from being inculturated into a time and a place that bootstraps you, after many years, into having internalized enough to make your "own" decisions out of that well of teaching. To ask an infant to consent in this instance is bordering on asking it to consent to its pronouns... and if you take the latter seriously, God help you. Because at that point you've adopted a faith in atomistic autonomy so fanatical that it is without question far more superstitious than any of the religious beliefs you fear.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Bullshit. This is what you posted: "Just do the right thing, and make sure your kids get cut at a young age,so they do t need to live with the shame that ya'll have. They'll thank you for it."
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
Um, where does that say that they should feel shame? Based on the comments, I believe that they do feel shame.
I believe that male circumcision is the correct thing to do to a newborn. I don't have issue with those that aren't, or those who choose not to do it for their kids.
Zog
Banned
...but if men preferred cut women, that would never be a justification for FGM.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
IMO the true motivation behind this is to remove every and any law God has put in place for his believers. Enjoy your cyberpunk 2077 future where you have a generation of worthless people running everything into the ground moreso than now.
Last edited:
Air Zombie Meat
Member
"I don't think people should feel shame but I think these poor misguided people do and I'm going to perpetuate it with my words and actions. btw get your kids cut or they'll be ashamed too"
Kamina
Golden Boy
All mutilation of children, no matter if it is based on religion/tradition or personal opinion, should be forbidden, unless it serves a confirmable medical purpose/advantage.
Cutting off foreskins or sewing together vaginas is not part of the above, so get rid of it officially.
Cutting off foreskins or sewing together vaginas is not part of the above, so get rid of it officially.
Last edited:
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
That's much closer to what I said, so thank you.
I don't believe that their kids will feel shame though. Often children are stronger than their parents. I do believe that the kids would have numerous benefits, and no downside to it, but I don't try and tell other people how to parent.
There are medical benefits to circumcision. There's some disagreement regarding how important those benefits are, but they are medical benefits none the less.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/
In the NYTimes, no less. My comparison of the weirdly inverted fanaticism of anti-circumcision crusaders to anti-vaxers has an existing precedent. There really isn't any medical science to back up fears of the procedure; it remains strictly a heated philosophical debate where one half insists on cloaking its opposition with a false "reason vs religion" narrative.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Kadayi
Banned
I'm not down with the exact medical terminology but the band of muscle that sits under the foreskin that controls retraction stopped expanding. The doctors opted for circumcision to deal with it, but apparently, it could have been dealt with a less invasive procedure by simply cutting the muscle band (they couldn't find anything wrong with the muscle itself upon removal according to my post op consultation). Either way, definitely not grounds for snipping kids just on the off chance as it's a rare situation.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Don't force your religious beliefs on others tho lmfao
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Sounds like something a Thalmor would say...
Kamina
Golden Boy
Are you talking baout the myth that foreskins are unhygienic or actual reasons?
BANGS
Banned
Praise Talos!
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Reproductive organs aren't meant to be good looking
I mean look at facehuggers
I mean look at facehuggers
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
You should learn how to use Google.
If you're circumcised as an infant, the odds of having scar tissue are minimal. Even if you do, it's not noticeable. I can't find any scarring on my dick, for example.
Kamina
Golden Boy
And do your job of backing up your own claims? No thank you.
Most of the stuff stated is pseudoscience or unconfirmed at best, and which can be also avoided by regular cleaning.
No need to mutilate someone for that, especially considering that it isnt riskless.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
YAHWEH the BARBARIAN
Doesn't mutilating something typically leave it almost useless?
Last edited:
Kamina
Golden Boy
Dont know, does it?
Aren't there also some reports of sexual pleasure feelings getting less intense for circumiced men? At least I recall reing that some time ago.
In the end, a foreskin is something nature intended. It is obviously some sort of protection, and I dont understand why some people need to find reasons to cut something off just because it seems pointless to them.
The small toe is pointless, do we cut it off because of that?
Earlobes are pointless, do we cut them off?
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Image searching the word mutilated paints a picture that's not a far cry but VAST CANYONS from what you guys are screeching about. More than likely why no one ever takes people that go to the extreme seriously. And if God made it a covenant for it to be removed, I doubt it's a necessity of life.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
It hasn't been proven either way and in the end if thats your big argument its pretty lame. Big deal sex MIGHT be less pleasurable, as if sex is the only thing that matters in life.
And is so hard to use the term medical procedure instead of mutilation. I know its in the anti circumscision handbook but the only reason you are using that term is because its emotionally charged to try and make your argument stronger.
No one calls getting a tattoo mutilation or body piercings as mutilation.
And speaking of body piercings, I hear that sex with a piercing is much more pleasurable, so I guess then we should mutilate eveyones dicks by piercing them so they can feel the ultimate pleasure? I mean you aren't having as pleasurable sex as someone with a pierced mutilated dick. You better get your dick pierced and make sure every other male you know has theirs pierced as well you can't miss out on that pleasure.
Kamina
Golden Boy
By all means, enlighten us with a better word then that describes unnecessary removal of body parts.
cryptoadam
Banned
Its in the anti circumcision play book. They all use that term(you will notice everyone against it consistently calls it mutilation) because its an emotional charged word that paints a very negative picture.
It can be called what it is a medical procedure but that doesn't make it sound evil enough.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
But my penis is still in my pants and in tact. Not only that, it has provided me with many a pleasurable experience.
Kamina
Golden Boy
Well to be fair, i also find drilling holes into body parts like penis tips weird. The major difference here is that the people could decide themselves if they want that or not, not like forced circumcision as child.
I could care less for people cutting off their boy parts, but dont force it on your kid because you think it is okay.
Edit: and no, pointless circumcision is not a medical procedure in my eyes.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
Medical procedure.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Neither of my sons Circumcisions looked anything like the image search of "mutilated" looks like. TBH I'd say what's left after clipping the umbilical cord looks worse than a Circumcision
Kamina
Golden Boy
No, not if it was pointless and just for the sake of doing it because "my parents did it to me and thiers to them"
Last edited:
Corderlain
Banned
Never understood the anti circumcision movement. It's vestigial. It's more difficult to clean, requires more maintenance, and is more likely to catch literally everything.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked