Male circumcision

Junkyard Tom

Chloris wrote: »

It certainly shouldn't be done in countries where their medical system is inadequate.

It shouldn't be done anywhere except specifically for medical reasons.

I'd imagine all cases of babies dying in the US after circumcision are to do with negligence or poor infection control procedures.

There's a great way of avoiding any complications at all - don't cut bits off babies' genitals unless it is medically necessary.

I don't think that is reason enough to discredit the procedure entirely.

If it's not for medical reasons - an adult takes a blade to a child and cuts bits of its genitals off causing pain and suffering up to and including death.

Tell me why such violence, rather than being ethical, escapes qualifying as a crime of grievous bodily harm?

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

What part of 'sucking' on a 'dick' is incorrect?

Ultra-orthodox Rabbis sometimes suck on baby's dicks... that is a factually correct statement.

I never mentioned sex. Performing female genital mutilation isn't a sex act either.

I don't have to explain to a sentient adult what "sucking dick" means, no more than I'd have to explain that a gynecologist isn't someone who "fingers women".

Novella

I live in the US and am expecting a baby. It seems to be really common here for people to have their baby boys circumcised and when I told my doctor that I would not be consenting to a circumcision unless baby (if a boy) needed one she actually questioned me about it. I just said that it was cultural and I didn't want to put my newborn through any unnecessary pain. Her argument (and it did feel like an argument) was, "Well I presume your baby is going to grow up here so it will be against our cultural norm for him to be uncircumcised."

Links234

Chloris wrote: »

But alas, you'll probably enjoy neither!

Challenge accepted.

Bongalongherb

Once the member is kept clean daily, all is ok. Cutting off of said penis-fore-skin is just barbaric and a religious of old indoctrination of crazyism. 'better than soap and water john' ? really ? ah sure my middle finger-nail should be hacked off so that my finger-nail doesn't get an infection from being so un-clean. Let's chop it off just to be sure shall we.

They will start chopping their arses off next for some reason 'fart',

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Has anyone who thinks it's okay to cut a baby like that ever watched one being done? There's videos on youtube. Come back to me and say you still think it's fine just because 'they won't remember it'.

Junkyard Tom

Novella wrote: »

I told my doctor that I would not be consenting to a circumcision ... Her argument was, " it will be against our cultural norm for him to be uncircumcised."

I think I would have told her to shut up at that point.

Bongalongherb

Ella Billions Monochrome wrote: »

Has anyone who thinks it's okay to cut a baby like that ever watched one being done? There's videos on youtube. Come back to me and say you still think it's fine just because 'they won't remember it'.

I'm a reasonably mature adult man, and the thought of that being done to me now makes me curl up in pain.

If it looks odd, and something is covering it/hiding as such...cut it off. It can only be evil - very bad.

How ironic. My friend just came in there and asked me would I like a few cock-tail sausages. Strange coincidence for sure.

Mr_Muffin

The only people who think it's OK and argue for it are the people who have had it done.

I'll keep my body part which i was born with that does nothing to interfere with my everyday life thank you.

Novella

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I think I would have told her to shut up at that point.

I left that appointment absolutely furious, telling my husband I needed to find a new doctor because I couldn't have someone delivering our baby who didn't respect my wishes. I'd understand if she was arguing for something that would affect my health or the health of the baby but this is literally just personal preference. Some people think circumcised looks better or is cleaner and that's fine, to each their own, but to me it's a medical procedure and not something I am going to force on any son of mine when it's not needed.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Was always a Jew thing never a Christian practice. Most people on this island are confirmed full made members of the Roman Catholic Church, you can never leave, in Christ till Final Judgement.

Grayson

Chloris wrote: »

Anyway, I think it's fantastic. I think foreskins are completely gross now. Although it's definitely true about the reduced sensitivity, I think the benefits outweigh the cost. Plus, when you jizz, the sensation is just as good... It'll probably just mean a longer build-up, and I can't really see how that's a bad thing either.

If someone thinks big labia are gross, should FGM be considered? Is it fantastic when they're removed?

seamusk84

Had it done when I was 23 for medical reasons. It's fine but I would absolutely not have got it done if there was a choice in the matter.
The recovery (6 weeks to be fully right) in particular was awful.

daRobot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Useless trivia. Unless one is Jewish.

It's not a rabbi, it's a mohel.

That went completely over your head.

darkpagandeath

Prb been covered, But It started out In desert environment/hot places as a prevention of infection. I.e. not washing and sand being trapped benith the foreskin. Not the same as a vagina they are pretty much self cleaning with discharges and all that And the overall design.

Vowel Movement

Chloris wrote: »

I read somewhere on the Internet that he thought people would just eat the cereal instead of masturbating.

THERE'S A COCK ON THE BOX!

Tin Foil Hat

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prb been covered, But It started out In desert environment/hot places as a prevention of infection.

This is a myth. In a time before antibiotics and sterilised surgical tools circumcision would have caused far more infections than it could possibly have prevented.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prb been covered, But It started out In desert environment/hot places as a prevention of infection. I.e. not washing and sand being trapped benith the foreskin. Not the same as a vagina they are pretty much self cleaning with discharges and all that And the overall design.

appetite lost....

darkpagandeath

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

This is a myth. In a time before antibiotics and sterilised surgical tools circumcision would have caused far more infections than it could possibly have prevented.

Lack of understanding of ancient medicine I see. Who were the first ones to nose jobs ? contrary to belief ancient medicine was quite good. You may be thinking of Terrible western medicine.

goose2005

whupdedo wrote: »

I'm circumcised and I have to say I can't imagine any fella not having it done , I think I'd hate the feel of it but I suppose I wouldn't know any different, I had it done as a baby and sur nobody remembers what happens them a baby so I can't see the harm in it

that sounds a lot like denial. you were assaulted and mutilated as an infant for no real reason and you're trying to rationalise it.

goose2005

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prb been covered, But It started out In desert environment/hot places as a prevention of infection. I.e. not washing and sand being trapped benith the foreskin. Not the same as a vagina they are pretty much self cleaning with discharges and all that And the overall design.

That's a myth. How much sand do you think you can get in your foreskin? And the early Israelites lived in hill country, not sandy deserts.

Depraved

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Adults chopping bits of children's genitalia off.

Fucking creepy.

That's exactly how an alien species would likely view us.

darkpagandeath

goose2005 wrote: »

That's a myth. How much sand do you think you can get in your foreskin? And the early Israelites lived in hill country, not sandy deserts.

Ancient Egypt.

Niemoj

This whole thread makes me go ouch lol

TPD

I remember hearing that one of the rabbi-baby-dick-suckers actually gave a kid an sti.

harry Bailey esq

Its not something I'd ever consider,my knob is small enough as it is,pruning would only worsen my tiny Micky complex

Sleepless and Manic

goose2005 wrote: »

that sounds a lot like denial. you were assaulted and mutilated as an infant for no real reason and you're trying to rationalise it.

Or he's just giving you his honest point of view.

PlainP

Candie wrote: »

By that logic someone whose toenail falls off isn't a real person, since part of them is missing.

Toe nails grow back foreskin doesn't. As someone else mentioned if it was a choice given to teenagers or adults it would never be done.

It is a horrible practice and should be outlawed on children.

Sleepless and Manic

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

The only people who think it's OK and argue for it are the people who have had it done.

Which tells you something doesnt it?

I'm not arguing for it, parents can do what they want. But I had it done to me as a baby and honestly I dont have any complaints. Really never give it much thought except for threads like this.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Plenty of men who've had it also speak out against it. There's also a whole foreskin restoration movement.

Gwynplaine

Threeskin

bleg

Religious people -

"What a beauutiful baby boy! Now let's cut a bit of him off!"

Lunatics.

222233

bleg wrote: »

Religious people -

"What a beauutiful baby boy! Now let's cut a bit of him off!"

Lunatics.

They also used to casturate baby males before so that they would have high pitched voices for church hym singing. true story.

Luke92

Laoislion8383 wrote: »

Sore as feck that's for sure, but on a personal note being told by numerous sexual partners through out my life that I had plenty of staying power in the bedroom and done a bit of research on it and yes guys that get the procedure done young will find it hard(excuse the pun) to climax during sex, hence the staying power

I reckon this is wrong? If you're not cut then you have skin covering the head (where the nerves are located). So would it not be the other way around? Someone who got the snip should be a lot more sensitive.

222233

Luke92 wrote: »

I reckon this is wrong? If you're not cut then you have skin covering the head (where the nerves are located). So would it not be the other way around? Someone who got the snip should be a lot more sensitive.

I have actually noticed circumcised partners did find it harder to ejaculate, sometimes they even couldn't

endacl

Luke92 wrote: »

I reckon this is wrong? If you're not cut then you have skin covering the head (where the nerves are located). So would it not be the other way around? Someone who got the snip should be a lot more sensitive.

I'm guessing from your username that you own a penis? From the '92' bit I further guess that your in your 20s.

You do know that, ideally, your foreskin should retract? Jeez. Am I really explaining this to an adult male?!?

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Luke92 wrote: »

I reckon this is wrong? If you're not cut then you have skin covering the head (where the nerves are located). So would it not be the other way around? Someone who got the snip should be a lot more sensitive.

The foreskin is packed with nerves http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

Luke92

endacl wrote: »

I'm guessing from your username that you own a penis? From the '92' bit I further guess that your in your 20s.

You do know that, ideally, your foreskin should retract? Jeez. Am I really explaining this to an adult male?!?

Well, rolls back and forth is a better way of explaining it. And just thinking, this would cause more pleasure! So yeah don't mind me!

anncoates

Laoislion8383 wrote: »

I had plenty of staying power in the bedroom

Am I the only one reading this in a Barry White voice?

endacl

anncoates wrote: »

Am I the only one reading this in a Barry White voice?

I heard it as Joe Pasquale...

jackofalltrades

I hope someday that we can look back and see how insane it was to let parents chop bits off their children for religious reasons.
We're already half way there banning FGM, society just needs to make the connection that FGM and MGM are different sides to the same coin.

I can see measures to possibly outlaw these practices being met with fierce opposition.

kylith

If it needs to be done for medical reasons that's one thing, but otherwise there really is no reason for it at all.

I went out with a guy for years who was circumcised and he had issues that ranged from lack of sensitivity to premature ejaculation. Had a ONS (well, tried to) with a guy who was circumcised and he had ED.

You have a foreskin for a reason. Removing it from a baby for no good reason (and religion is not a good reason) is not acceptable.

Jimoslimos

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I hope someday that we can look back and see how insane it was to let parents chop bits off their children for religious reasons.
We're already half way there banning FGM, society just needs to make the connection that FGM and MGM are different sides to the same coin.

I can see measures to possibly outlaw these practices being met with fierce opposition.

No they are not. Whilst religious reasons for either are both to be condemned (and outlawed) the reasons behind each couldn't be more different.

ekimiam

ban all religious practices that are gender specific

ie circumcisions and burqas/niqab's

rubadub

kylith wrote: »

If it needs to be done for medical reasons that's one thing, but otherwise there really is no reason for it at all.

But in some cases it's a quick fix for medical reasons. It is often done since the foreskin is too tight and there are methods of slowly stretching it which could be used instead. But probably takes more checkups, cleaning, and monitoring.

I find it strange that countries will ban all forms of FGM but still allow MGM, the clitoris is analogous to the penis, and the clitoral hood to the foreskin, there is a type of FGM which is removing the clitoral hood, though its meant to be rarely done alone I expect it is illegal in most countries banning FGM.

Yes I read about the court case where the judge told the mother she was going to jail until she consented to her child being mutilated.

Disgusting practice

pablomakaveli

rubadub wrote: »

But in some cases it's a quick fix for medical reasons. It is often done since the foreskin is too tight and there are methods of slowly stretching it which could be used instead. But probably takes more checkups, cleaning, and monitoring.

.

I believe theres also a procedure where a cut is made in the foreskin and then sewn back up leaving it looser but doctors tend to over recommend full circumcision.

Wibbs

The Greeks and Romans considered it an act of savages, a primitive blood rite of barbarians(which it is), hence why christianity unlike all other Jewish based religions never made it part of their religion. There was some heated discussion about it in the early church, but they realised that their nascent faith would be dead in the water if this was compulsory.

Wibbs

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I believe theres also a procedure where a cut is made in the foreskin and then sewn back up leaving it looser but doctors tend to over recommend full circumcision.

I have to say what shocked me most about the long running thread on the subject in the Gentlemans Club forum here on Boards is how apparently ignorant of other procedures Irish doctors, including specialists were. A few hadn't even heard of such a procedure, or misdescribed it. Now there are most certainly conditions that require the full procedure, where the foreskin is utterly fecked and there is no other option but to remove it and give a man his willie back, but in the vast majority of stories it was straight to chop it all off regardless of the severity of the issue that required resolution. Scary stuff. Though over the years and with experience of the medical field through life and relatives who are doctors, the profession is just as prone to "not invented here" and "it's the way we've always done it" and fashion as any other profession.

SpaceTime

It's actually quite bizarre that it's considered acceptable practice by anyone with any sense of human rights or morality.

In some circumstances it can be useful for solving medical issues but it should be last resort like any operation. If you need it, it's a completely different scenario.

To me it's a bit like if they made having your tonsils out part of culture or a default thing! It's a bit nuts to put it mildly.

I don't think the religious argument stands up at all. I mean I was brought up Catholic and I'm an atheist now. At least with Catholicism it's just holy water and a bit of guilt tripping ... I don't have to reattach anything!!

I fundamentally think that everyone has a right to bodily integrity and I can't see why parents would have any right to override that.

An operation to resolve a problem is one thing but what amounts to non-consensual plastic surgery on a perfectly healthy body is just deeply wrong.
I mean would you tattoo your kids?! It's not a hell of a lot different.

If you're an adult get whatever you like done but don't inflict unnecessary surgery on people who cannot make their own informed decisions on it!

The American non religious arguments in favour of it as a routine thing are just mind boggling. For a supposedly enlightened 1st world country you would really wonder !! It's just cultural dogma.

I think it will go away in the U.S. when someone successfully sues their parents and hospital and I'm sure that will inevitably happen.