Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[looseliam]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

LOL

wooooooowwwwwwww

Let me reword it for you:

How is being circumcised a benefit? How is being uncircumcised a benefit?

What about the childs rights? They didn't ask to be here but society must impose an acceptable standard of parenting. For instance is it a parental right to feed you child so much that it endanders their health and causes them to be bullied to the point of destroying their self worth?

With this situation in particular, I don't feel the child has any rights - the decision is the parent's.

ANd I'm all for acceptable standards for parenting. I'd also like to see certain people not be allowed to have children - or have their children taken away.

Neither I nor you get to make that decision.

 

[trikky]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

well in the Uk and europe circumcision is rare, very rare. I only knew of one guy at my school who was circumcised and that was for medical reasons. Can't understand why it is done wholesale in the states.

 

[unloadonme]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

... I don't feel the child has any rights ...

So you're unaware of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

You might find this piece interesting:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157we19.htm

particularly: "Non-therapeutic excision of healthy tissue from the human body quite clearly is an unethical violation of human rights when carried out on a child because this amputative excision of healthy functional tissue is a violation of human rights."

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Let me reword it for you:

How is being circumcised a benefit?

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection* in men by approximately 60%

(asterisk is my own)


http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html



*The primary means of infection in gay men is by unprotected bottoming, which causes the infected semen to be absorbed directly into your system, making it the most efficient means of infection other than intravenous drug use, infected blood transfusion or infected organ transplant. The majority of men in the US are circumcised, including gay men. . .yet they're still 30 times more likely to acquire the disease than their heterosexual counterparts. Many European and Asian countries have much lower rates of HIV infection, and yet the vast majority of men in these nations have their foreskins.

How is being uncircumcised a benefit?

The 20 reasons given by NOHARMM. Basically, lost nerve endings.



Though it's important to note that there are many men who have gotten circumcised later in life, either due to medical necessity (unresponsive phimosis) or for cosmetic or religious purposes. In nations such as The Philippines and South Korea, the circumcision rate mirrors that of the US, except that it's a societal norm to get circumcised as a teenager or adult. Most doctors there will NOT circumcise a newborn unless absolutely necessary. **The majority of men who've gotten circumcised later in life state that it has little or no negative impact on their sex life. In fact, there are even a few men on JUB who've gotten circumcised as an adult, and they can tell you that their sexual pleasure and orgasms are still very intense and enjoyable.** Personally, I don't believe that being circumcised has much of any real negative impact on sexual enjoyment, unless the procedure is botched.




The primary issues with male circumcision have always been pain, which is why I personally think it should never be done on a newborn, and psychology; the most powerful sexual organ is the brain. If you convince yourself that being circumcised makes your sex life less enjoyable, it will eventually come true. Those who don't really care, or view it as a positive thing, seem to be doing fine.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Alright, seeing as how we're going that route so quickly, removing the clitoral hood and/or labia of a female child is perfectly fine with everyone here? Those parts of a woman serve the exact same purpose as a foreskin does on a man.

No? I didn't think it would be.

It's not the same thing though, is it? Female circumcision is typically much more radical than male circumcision; the equivalent would be slicing the boy's knob off where it juts out of the pelvis; or at best, lopping the head off completely. Female circumcision practiced these days, as I understand it, is to minimise or nullify sexual pleasure. This is not the aim of male circumcision

Any circumcised guy in here not get any sensation off his cock?

Anyone?

Exactly.

Having said all that, I will not circumcise my sons should I have boys later in life since I do believe it to be unnecessary; however, I am not anti-circumcision enough to go all knee-jerk hand-wringing about people who do. I was done as a kid; doesn't bug me. Everything works fine. I don't hate my parents for doing what they thought or were lead to believe was right because I don't think they meant me any harm.

However, I hope the bill does not pass unless it also prevents religion-based circumcision. Good for the goose etc etc; no reason why parents should be allowed to decide this for their kids for religious reasons and not medical ones if the rest of the parents are prevented from making the decision on non-medical grounds.

-d-

 

[Lefty]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

ULOM old friend....

with the citing of EX-SPURTS and

POLITICAL rectal cavities you have

accidentally inculcated the specious

logic of this calamitous issue.

I am about to circumcise this thread

from my portmanteau of interest.

For the record, I like chicken and eggs.

If you cut off the chicken at the neck,

you lose eggs..ok, but you also lose squawk.

EH?

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

It's not the same thing though, is it? Female circumcision is typically much more radical than male circumcision; the equivalent would be slicing the boy's knob off where it juts out of the pelvis; or at best, lopping the head off completely. Female circumcision practiced these days, as I understand it, is to minimise or nullify sexual pleasure. This is not the aim of male circumcision

The NOCIRC advocates compare male circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation, which is completely removal of the clitoris, and is sometimes accompanied with sewing up the vaginal canal. The purpose of it is to destroy a woman's pleasure, or restrict it until she's a man's sexual property.

The proper comparison would be a removal of just the clitoral hood. A quick google search shows that some ob-gyns in the US actually DO remove or reduce the clitoral hood surgically in select few cases. TIL!

However, I hope the bill does not pass unless it also prevents religion-based circumcision. Good for the goose etc etc; no reason why parents should be allowed to decide this for their kids for religious reasons and not medical ones if the rest of the parents are prevented from making the decision on non-medical grounds.

Duh, you know people will just travel outside of San Francisco to get their son circumcised. Jews have money and there are PLENTY of surgeons in Los Angeles, remember?

 

[MyReply]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Who the fuck cares. It's not a big deal.

There are more serious things done to children when they are younger.

How you think, believe, behave... these are things instilled in us as children outside of our free will and they are much more important than how our penis looks.

Thank you. I can't believe it gets this real over a few millimeters of foreskin. Is there really no more worthy 'cause' you can become get on some high horse and posture about?

 

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

The NOCIRC advocates compare male circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation, which is completely removal of the clitoris, and is sometimes accompanied with sewing up the vaginal canal. The purpose of it is to destroy a woman's pleasure, or restrict it until she's a man's sexual property.

The proper comparison would be a removal of just the clitoral hood. A quick google search shows that some ob-gyns in the US actually DO remove or reduce the clitoral hood surgically in select few cases. TIL!

Yes, but the NOCIRC advocates are hardly unbiased. This is half their problem - they come across as rabid lunatics and are difficult to take seriously.

Jews have money and there are PLENTY of surgeons in Los Angeles, remember?

Where is that popcorn smiley hiding?

-d-

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Of course it should be banned. It is a functioning part of the child's body, and it is his exclusive choice, barring a medical emergency.

The best reason in favour of banning routine circumcision comes from the pro-circ whiners who say "It's no big deal." If it is no big deal then preventing it is surely also no big deal.

When the government wants you in jail for publishing a newspaper they don't like, or joining a political party they don't like, that is a big deal, and they need to be stopped.

But if circumcision is truly "no big deal" then the government banning it shouldn't really bother anyone. And if it is, after all, a big deal, then it must be the boy's own choice.

 

[looseliam]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

So you're unaware of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

You might find this piece interesting:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157we19.htm

particularly: "Non-therapeutic excision of healthy tissue from the human body quite clearly is an unethical violation of human rights when carried out on a child because this amputative excision of healthy functional tissue is a violation of human rights."

No, I was not aware of such convention. I don't recognise the United Nations as a governing body able to make and promulgate laws. As such, I am aware of no such US legislation - though I could be wrong.

(asterisk is my own)

*The primary means of infection in gay men is by unprotected bottoming, which causes the infected semen to be absorbed directly into your system, making it the most efficient means of infection other than intravenous drug use, infected blood transfusion or infected organ transplant. The majority of men in the US are circumcised, including gay men. . .yet they're still 30 times more likely to acquire the disease than their heterosexual counterparts. Many European and Asian countries have much lower rates of HIV infection, and yet the vast majority of men in these nations have their foreskins.

The 20 reasons given by NOHARMM. Basically, lost nerve endings.

Though it's important to note that there are many men who have gotten circumcised later in life, either due to medical necessity (unresponsive phimosis) or for cosmetic or religious purposes. In nations such as The Philippines and South Korea, the circumcision rate mirrors that of the US, except that it's a societal norm to get circumcised as a teenager or adult. Most doctors there will NOT circumcise a newborn unless absolutely necessary. **The majority of men who've gotten circumcised later in life state that it has little or no negative impact on their sex life. In fact, there are even a few men on JUB who've gotten circumcised as an adult, and they can tell you that their sexual pleasure and orgasms are still very intense and enjoyable.** Personally, I don't believe that being circumcised has much of any real negative impact on sexual enjoyment, unless the procedure is botched.

The primary issues with male circumcision have always been pain, which is why I personally think it should never be done on a newborn, and psychology; the most powerful sexual organ is the brain. If you convince yourself that being circumcised makes your sex life less enjoyable, it will eventually come true. Those who don't really care, or view it as a positive thing, seem to be doing fine.

There are pros to both; there are cons to both.

Where is that popcorn smiley hiding?

-d-

But if circumcision is truly "no big deal" then the government banning it shouldn't really bother anyone. And if it is, after all, a big deal, then it must be the boy's own choice.

Well, if it's "no big deal" then what's the harm in leaving it up to the parent?

 

[Lefty]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Banky,

this silly issue about circumcision has been beaten to death,

re'erected and beaten to death ad nauseum.

The true fly in the ointment is Government and its Proboscis

being inserted in to the private parts (read minds and assholes)

of the COMMON (fuck they are so dumb and tacky) citizenry.

Government was meant to aid not RULE.

 

[sixthson]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Perhaps deformity was the wrong word. Let's say there is some physical feature the parents wish to change. It had no bearing on the health of child. Should that parent be prohibited from making such a decision?

Actually this is a very good comparison you make.

If parents were to start altering the size of their baby's noses or ears or the shape of the eyes or began to bleach skin that they feel is too dark, I think you would hear a major outcry about child abuse. And rightly so. A child is not a lego toy that you can mix and match until you get the design you want.

I do, however, believe that unless damage has been done to the penis, all guys, cut or uncut, get lots of pleasure from their equipment.

 

[levenshulme31]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

I'm surprised no-one has raised the issue of profit. Circumcising newborns is a profitable endeavour adding a few hundred dollars to every medical bill for male births.

It should be banned in all but medically necessary cases.

I would also ban religious circumcision. It's bad enough that kids get their brains indoctrinated by religious nonsense without adding circumcision to the mix.

Let the boy decide for himself when he reaches adulthood.

It would be intersting to know how many adult circumcisions are done for aesthetic rather than medical reasons. I'd bet there are very few indeed.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Actually this is a very good comparison you make.

If parents were to start altering the size of their baby's noses or ears or the shape of the eyes or began to bleach skin that they feel is too dark, I think you would hear a major outcry about child abuse. And rightly so. A child is not a lego toy that you can mix and match until you get the design you want.

I do, however, believe that unless damage has been done to the penis, all guys, cut or uncut, get lots of pleasure from their equipment.

Yes; I wonder how many would be as quick to grant immigrants from the Australian outback the right to perform subincision on "their" young.

Banky,

this silly issue about circumcision has been beaten to death,

re'erected and beaten to death ad nauseum.

The true fly in the ointment is Government and its Proboscis

being inserted in to the private parts (read minds and assholes)

of the COMMON (fuck they are so dumb and tacky) citizenry.

Government was meant to aid not RULE.

And of course in this case the job of government is to AID the male infant to keep his body whole and intact until such time as he can make his own choice despite the meddling of his parent's aesthetics or his parent's religious superstitions, or despite the social pressures of the fad of the day.

 

[BearBoi]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

According to yesterday's New York Times, the group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco will be on the ballot next November. If the ballot passes, then circumncision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The Times reports:
"The practice would become a misdemenaor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail." Religious circumcisions are exempted.

Hence civil rights of parents and doctors are compromised. They have the right of having circumcisions for their new borns and adolescents or not. This law overrides the freedom of parental decision and oversight. This is a dangerous step toward facism.

My Body, My Choice.​

Nobody had the right to cosmetically alter my healthy, intact genitals through unnecessary amputation.

The only person who should be allowed to make such a life-impacting decision should be the person who owns the penis.

In North America, girls bodies are respected as their own property; baby boys are treated as property.

This measure simply addresses the point of Equality under the Law. That is a good thing.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Well, if it's "no big deal" then what's the harm in leaving it up to the parent?

My point is if it is no big deal then parents shouldn't give a fuck whether they're allowed to circumcise their sons any more than they give a fuck about which locker their kids are assigned at school. But if you tell these fanatical parents "No" then they freak out and it is a big deal and all of a sudden, only they have the right to decide which parts of someone else's penis stay or go. If it is a big deal for them, it is an even bigger deal for their son. And it is his fucking choice, not theirs. These parents can't have it both ways.

 

[looseliam]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

My point is if it is no big deal then parents shouldn't give a fuck whether they're allowed to circumcise their sons any more than they give a fuck about which locker their kids are assigned at school. But if you tell these fanatical parents "No" then they freak out and it is a big deal and all of a sudden, only they have the right to decide which parts of someone else's penis stay or go. If it is a big deal for them, it is an even bigger deal for their son. And it is his fucking choice, not theirs. These parents can't have it both ways.

This may be a bit esoteric, but work with me:

A mother can abort her fetus. However, she can't choose to circumcise her son?

 

[fetaby]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

This may be a bit esoteric, but work with me:

A mother can abort her fetus. However, she can't choose to circumcise her son?

'S not really part of her body anymore is it?

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

his choice? it's not his choice.. he's a fucking baby.

There are much more damaging things that no one is complaining about.

If there was cosmetic surgery parents elected to have to remove a very embarrassing mark from their child.. should that be illegal as well?

I can't believe why people are making such a big deal of this.

We don't need unnecessary laws. If you don't want parents to do it.. then try to convince them.. don't fucking ban them.

I honestly don't even know where to begin. How can people not see that we own our own bodies? We have never been property of our parents. Babies are not like a boston fern or a pekinese or a coffee table or something. They are human beings with rights that parents have no choice but to respect; they are not property of the parents.

Their moral duty is to preserve that choice for the child to make himself. It should be their legal duty as well.

We don't need unnecessary surgery waaaaaaay more than we don't need unnecessary laws. If parents want their sons to be circumcised, then they should try to convince their sons.

"Kiddo, we think you should go under the knife. Please think it over."

And yes, parents sometimes starve and beat their children to death. Parents sometimes molest their children. Parents sometimes pull stupid irresponsible shit that holds kids back or even keeps them from graduating. Just because those things are bad does not make forced circumcision any better.

It's barbaric, and it should be illegal. I am 100% behind a man's decision to do that if he wants. If he asks me if I think it is smart, no. But his right, absolutely. His parents' right? Never. It's appalling.